





"W 



.• «&*V V 






- 



•j^L'* ^ v •!•£•. <=* A ** *>$&:* ^ .* •Wat- ^i 



\ \s y 






W 












•V 







0° .».^> °o 







'.* ^ 






• ^ % 





















a, ^ V 

* ^ •« 



A<=L 






Aq. ►«! 



' »*!nL% ^> 



<o • " \" "*U rt^ • • • r > V • • • °# c\. 





^c? : 













J% 




*bv* 









<$> * «, , 












*, ♦... ' .*■*• 







A°+ 



</\ -H ; ****** : IW-* /*%. '.- 






*W 





.A.WA. 




LECTURES 



0N 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



BY 



GEORGE CHRISTIAN KNAPP, V.D. 

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE TTNIVERSU'Y OF HALLE. 



TRANSLATED BY 

LEONARD WOODS, JUN. D.D. 

PRESIDENT OF BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BRUNSWICK, MAINS. 



SIXTH AMERICAN EDITION, 

REPRINTED FROM THE LAST LONDON EDITION. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

J. W. MOORE, 195 CHESTNUT STREET 

18 56. 



v 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1845, by Thomas Wardle, in the clerk's office of the 
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



Drew TheoL Sem. 

M SXCHANQB. 



*& 



CONTENTS. 



Translator's Preface ' p. 9 

INTRODUCTION. 
iECT. PAGE 

1. Of Religion and Theology, and the difference be- 

tween them 23 

2. Of religion as the means of the moral improve- 

ment and perfection of men . . 27 

3. Of natural and revealed religion 28 

4. Is the knowledge of God innate? 32 

5. Of the articles of faith, and the analogy of faith 33 

6. Of the mysteries of religion 35 

7. General observations on the use of the holy scrip- 

tures, reason, and tradition, as sources of 
Christian doctrines . . M 37 

8. Of the object, different degrees, principal periods, 

and biblical appellations of divine revelation 40 

9. Of the scientific treatment of Christian theology 43 

ARTICLE I. 

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AS THE SOURCE OF OUR 
KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 

1. Names and divisions of the books belonging to 

the holy scriptures 47 

2. Of the authenticity or genuineness of the books 

of the New Testament 47 



SECT. PAGE 

3. Of the authenticity of the books of the Old Tes- 

tament 48 

4. Of the canon of the Old Testament, or the collec- 

tion of the books of the Old Testament into a 
whole 50 

5. Of the canon of the New Testament, or the col- 

lection of the books of the New Testament 
into a whole 53 

6. Of the unadulterated correctness and integrity of 

the Old and New Testament scriptures. ... 56 

7. Of the truth and divinity of the doctrines taught 

by Christ and his apostles 57 

8. Of the inspiration of the scriptures of the Old 

and New Testament, or the higher divine in- 
fluence enjoyed by the sacred writers .... 62 

9. Historical observations comparing the concep- 

tions and expressions of the ancient world 
respecting immediate divine influence .... 66 

10. Of the various theories respecting the manner 

and the degrees of inspiration 63 

11. Of some of the principal attributes of the holy 

scriptures 71 

12. Of the use of the Bible as the source of the doc- 

trines of revelation 74 

13. Of the reading of the holy scriptures 78 



BOOK I.— DOCTRINE OF GOD. 



PART I. 

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

ARTICLE II. 

THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD. 

SECT. PAGE 

14. Of the notion of God 85 

15. Of the proofs of the divine existence 8G 

16. Of the unity of God.. 90 

17 Of the scripturatfnames of God 93 

ARTICLE III. 

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

18. Introduction to the doctrine respecting the na- 

ture and attributes of God 94 

19. Of the spirituality of God 9S 



SECT. PAGE 

20. Of the eternity and immutability of God .... 99 

21. The omnipotence of God 101 

22. Of the omniscience of God 102 

23. Of the omnipresence of God 105 

24. The wisdom of God 108 

25. Introductory remarks respecting the nature and 

perfections of the divine will 109 

26. Of the freedom, immutability, and efficacy of the 

divine will Ill 

27. General remarks on the moral attributes of the 

divine will 113 

23. Of the veracity and the goodness of God .. .. 114 

29. Of the holiness of God 116 

30. Of the justice of God .^ 117 

31. Of the justice of God (continued) 120 

32. Of the decrees of God (Appendix) 124 

3 



CONTENTS. 



ARTICLE I* 

DOCTRINE OP FATHER, SON, AN 9 HOLY GHOST. 
fiECT. PAGE 

33. Introductory remarks 130 

CHAP. I. 

BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY. 

34. Is this doctrine taught in the Old Testament 1 131 

35. Of those texts in the New Testament in which 

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned 

in connection 133 

36. Of those texts in which the Father, Son, and 

Holy Ghost are separately mentioned, and in 
which their nature and mutual relaiion are 
taught 135 

37. Of the texts in which divine names are given 

to Christ 136 

S3. Of the texts in which divine attributes and 
works »*re ascribed to Christ, and in which 

divine honour is required for him 138 

39. Of the Holy Spirit, and his personality . . . . 140 

40. Of the divinity of the Holy Spirit 142 

CHAP. II. 

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

41. Are there in Jewish or heathen writings any 

traces of the doctrine of the Trinity which 
were not derived from Christian sources 1 . . 144 

42. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during the 

second and third centuries, before the Nicene 
Council.. 148 

43. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during 

the fourth century, and of the distinctions 
established at the Nicene Council, and since 
adopted in the orthodox church 152 

44. History of the doctrine of the Trinity since the 

time of the Reformation 158 



PART II. 

THE WORKS OF GOD. 



ARTICLE V. 

OP THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

45. Of the meaning of the word " World," and of 

synonymous words 161 

46. What we mean when we speak of the creation 

of the world ; the proof of a creation ; the 
material from which it was made; with a 
sketch of the various opinions entertained 
on this subject 163 

47. The doctrine and language of the Biblical 

writers respecting the creation in general, 
and how they are to be understood 166 

48. The work of creation twofold ; different classes 

of creatures; our knowledge of them; and 
of God in the creation of the world; the best 
world 169 

49. Of the Mosaic account of the creation ; its ob- 

ject; and the various*hypotheses adopted to 
explain it 171 

50. Explanation of the Mosaic history of the creation 176 



ARTICLE VI. 

CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAN. 
SECT. PAGE 

51. Of the nature of man, especially of the soul of 

man, and of his destination 180 

52. Of the Mosaic account of the origin of the hu- 

man race 184 

53. Of the image of God in which man was created 189 

54. Of the primitive state of man ; his mental and 

moral perfections 19 s * 

55. Of the primitive state of man ; his bodily excel- 

lences, and speech 195 

56. Of the primitive state of man ; his external ad- 

vantages ; and the notion of a golden age . . 197 

57. Of the propagation of the human race 200 



ARTICLE VII. 

THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING ANGELS. 

58. Of the importance of the doctrine concerning 

angels, and some introductory historical re- 
marks .. 202 

59. Of the appellations of angels ; their nature ; 

proofs of their existence ; their creation and 
original state ; and the classes into which 
they are divided 207 

CHAP. I. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANGELS. 

60. Of the present state and employment of holy 

angels 209 

61. Of the classes of good angels ; their names ; and 

the worship rendered them 212 

CHAP. II. 

THE FALLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS. 

62. Of the existence of evil spirits, and their apos- 

tasy 215 

63. Of the nature and attributes of evil spirits ; 

their present and future condition ; their 
number, classes, and names 219 

64. Of the employments and the effects of evil spirits 222 



APPENDIX. 

POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY AND THE 
MATERIAL WORLD. 

65. Of the bodily possessions recorded in the New 

Testament 226 

66. Of magic and spectres 231 



ARTICLE VIII. 

THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 

67. What is meant by the providence of God, and 

historical remarks respecting this doctrine 1 235 

68. Of the proof of the doctrine of divine provi- 

dence, and of the divisions under which it 
has been treated 238 

69. Of the preservation of the existence and of the 

powers of created beings and things . . . . 241 

70. Of the government of God 245 

71. The government of God in relation to the free- 

dom of man, and to the evil existing in the 
world 247 

72. Of the nature and attributes of Divine Provi- 

dence 252 



CONTENTS. 



BOOK II.— THE DOCTRINE OF MAN. 



PART I. 

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY 
THE FALL. 



ARTICLE IX. 

OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 
SECT. PAGE 

73. What is meant by sin; the different words used 

in the Bible to denote sin, and the meaning 

of them 259 

74. What does reason, without the use of the Bible, 

teach us respecting the sinful state of man, 
and the origin of it? And how far do the 
results of reason on this subject agree with 
the Bible? 261 

75. Mosaic account of the sin of our first parents . . 266 

76. Of the imputation of the sin of our first parents 273 

77. In what the natural depravity of man consists ; 

its appellations in the Bible ; when it has 
its principal seat in man; and how its ex- 
istence may be proved from the holy scrip- 
tures 277 

78. Of the nature and attributes of this corruption ; 

its propagation ; its punishableness ; also of 
the origin of sinful desires among men, and 
their punishableness 284 

79. Of the representations of the ancient church- 

fathers respecting human depravity, and the 
manner in which the ecclesiastical phrase- 
ology on this subject and the various forms 
of doctrine were gradually developed .. .. 289 

80. Results of the foregoing discussion respecting 

the doctrine of natural depravity, and ob- 
servations on the mode of teaching this doc- 
trine 293 

81. Explanation of the idea which is commonly 

connected in theology with the expression 
"Actual Sins," and of the different degrees 
of sin 297 

82. Divisions of sin in respect to the law, to the 

knowledge and purpose of him who commits 

it, and to the action itself . . 299 

83. Of some other divisions of sin, and sins of par- 

ticipation 303 

84. Of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or the 

sin against the Holy Ghost 305 

85. Of the state into which men are brought by the 

commission of sin, and the different kinds 
and names of it 308 

86. What punishment is, and what is the object of 

it; how the divine punishments are named 
in the Bible, and what we are there taught 
respecting their nature; also the various di- 
visions of the divine punishments 311 

87. Some remarks on positive divine punishments 314 



PART II. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY 
THE REDEMPTION. 



ARTICLE X. 

OF JESUS CHRIST. 

CHAP. I. 

OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOB THE RESTORATION OF 
MEN, IN A GENERAL VIEW; THE EXPECTATIONS, PRE- 
DICTIONS, AND TYPES OF THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR 
FULFILMENT IN JESUS OF NAZARETH. 

SECT. PAGE 

88. Of the institutions established by God for the 

moral recovery and the salvation of the 
human race, in a general view ; the scrip- 
tural doctrines and representations on this 
subject; as a general introduction to what 
follows 317 

89. Formation and development of the idea of Mes- 

siah among the ancient and modern Jews 
their opinions respecting him; and the proof 
that Jesus was the Messiah 321 

90. Of the principles on which we are to interpret 

the literal and figurative predictions con- 
tained in the Old Testament respecting the 
Messiah, and the new institute founded by 
him 325 

91. Of the successive degrees of the revelations and 

predictions contained in the Old Testament 
respecting the Messiah 328 

CHAP. II. 

HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF HUMILIATION 
AND EXALTATION. 

92. The scriptural representation of the two prin- 

cipal periods in the life of Jesus ; the scrip- 
tural names of these periods ; the proof texts ; 
and some conclusions 331 

93. Of the origin, conception, birth, and youth of 

Jesus ; his true humanity, and the excel- 
lences of it 334 

94. Of the doctrine of Jesus, and his office as 

teacher 337 

95. Of the hardships and sufferings of Jesus .. .. 341 

96. Of Christ's descent into hell 343 

97. History of Christ considered as a man, in his 

state of exaltation 346 

98. Wherein the heavenly glory or majesty of Christ, 

as a man, consists ; and the scriptural idea 

of this kingdom and dominion of Christ. . . . 350 

99. Remarks on the form and sense of the scrip- 

tural representation respecting the kingdom 
of God and of Christ ; and on the signification 
of the phrase, to sit on the right hand of God, 
as applied to Christ 352 

a2 



CONTENTS. 



CHAP. III. 

DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 



100. The higher nature of Christ, and how it 
proved 



355 



101. Of the connection between the deity and huma- 

nity of Christ according to what the Bible 
directly teaches, and the consequences which 
may be deduced from its instructions . . . . 357 

102. Historical observations explanatory of the origin 

and progressive development of the eccle- 
siastical system respecting the person and 
the two natures of Christ, until the eighth 
century 361 

103. Historical observations continued; the ancient 

terminology respecting this doctrine ex- 
plained 366 

104. A brief exhibition of the ecclesiastical system 

respecting the person and the two natures 
of Christ ; an explanation of the ecclesias- 
tical phraseology now in use in the doctrine 
de communications idiomatum ; and a critical ' 
judgment upon the same 369 

CHAP. IV. 

THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT HAS BEEN 
EFFECTED BY IT. 

105. Scriptural names and descriptions of the works 

of Christ, and their salutary effects; also, 
the names of Christ as the Saviour of the 
world . . . . 372 

106. What is considered in the scriptures as properly 

belonging to the work which Christ per- 
formed for the good of men ; explanation of 
the word "redemption," as used in the 
Bible ; and what is the most convenient and 
natural order and connection for exhibiting 
the doctrine of the entire merits of Christ . . 374 

107. Of the method formerly adopted of considering 

the work of Christ as consisting of the pro- 
ohetic, priestly, and kingly offices 377 



PART I. OF CHAP. IV. 

On redemption from the punishment of sin ; or, the 
Atonement of Christ, and the Justification of Men 
before God,— the Consequence of the Atonement. 

108. Of the various opinions respecting the forgive- 

ness by God, and the conditions on which 
forgiveness may be granted; and an applica- 
tion of this to the scriptural doctrine of the 
atonement 380 

109. Scriptural doctrine respecting the necessity of 

the forgiveness of sin; what is meant by 
forgiveness, pardon, justification; and the 
scriptural terms by which they are desig- 
nated 385 

110. Illustration of the scriptural statement, that 

men owe it to Christ alone that God justifies 
them or forgives their sins 388 

111. Of the sufferings and death of Christ ; how far 

we are indebted to them for our justification 
or pardon ; together with observations on 
some of the principal attributes (affections) 
of the death of Christ 390 

112. Of the influence which the resurrection of Christ, 

and his subsequent exaltation and inter- 
cession, have upon our forgiveness or justifi- 
cation 395 



SECT. PAGE 

113.- The scripture doctrine of pardon or justification 
through Christ, as an universal and unmerited 
favour of God 397 

114. Of the various theories respecting the nature and 

manner of the atonement of Christ; and a 
notice of some of the most important works 
on atonement and justification 400 

115. Of the active obedience of Christ 405 

PART II. OF CHAP. IV. 

On Redemption from the Power or Dominion of SiTt. 

110. Of the importance of this doctrine; its con- 
formity with scripture, and the manner in 
which we are freed from sin through Christ 40S 

117. Of the deliverance from the power and dominion 

of sin, for which we are indebted, under di- 
vine assistance, to the instruction and ex- 
ample of Christ 410 

PART III. OF CHAP. IV. 

On the present and future consequences of the work 
of Christ. 

118. Scriptural titles of the salvation procured by 

Christ for men ; its general nature ; the doc- 
trine of the New Testament respecting the 
abolition of the Old Testament dispensation 
by Christianity, and the advantages resulting 
from it to the world 412 

119. The happiness which Christians obtain in this 

life from Christ 415 

120. The happiness which Christians obtain through 

Christ in the future life 418 

ARTICLE XI. 

DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION. 

121. Of the Christian doctrine of faith, as the only 

condition of salvation, together with remarks 
respecting the salvation of the heathen and 
of infants 420 

122. Of the various significations of the word "faith" 

as used in the Bible; some of the principal 
passages relating to faith ; the parts of which 
faith is made up; and some of the most im- 
portant theological divisions of faith .. .. 423 

123. Of the different objects of Christian doctrine to 

which faith refers; and the relation of faith 

to the same 427 

124. Of the connection of the parts of which faith is 

composed ; the characteristics and degrees 
of faith ; and the conditions on which it is 
saving 431 

125. Of the nature of Christian good works or virtues; 

the relation in which they stand to salvation ; 
and their meritoriousness 435 

126. Explanation of the terms which are used in the 

scriptures to denote both the external pro- 
fession of Christianity (fides externa) and 
internal moral improvement and sanctifi- 
cation 439 

127. Statement of the doctrine of moral reformation; 

its commencement ; on putting off repent- 
ance, and on late conversions 442 

128. Remarks on the false opinions and perversions 

concerning the doctrine of repentance, which 
have been gradually adopted in the Christian 
church 447 



CONTENTS. 



ARTICLE XII. 

the operations of grace; or the divine institu- 
tions FOR PROMOTINO REPENTANCE AND FAITH. 

SECT. PAGE 

129. Explanation of the terms "grace," "operations 

of grace," "means of grace," and other 
phrases employed in theology on this sub- 
ject; and the connection of this doctrine with 
the preceding 449 

130. What are the operations of divine grace for pro- 

moting the repentance and salvation of those 
who live in Christian lands ; and what means 
does God employ in exerting these influences 
on their hearts f 451 

131. How is the divine origin of these gracious renew- 

ing influences proved from the holy scrip- 
tures? and remarks in explanation of the 
scriptural phraseology on this subject . . . . 454 

132. A sketch of some of the principal theories re- 

specting the operations of divine grace, and 
the freedom (or ability) of man in spiritual 
things ; and the controversies on this subject 
in the Christian Church 458 

133. Exhibition of the modern theory respecting the 

divinity of the operations of grace, and the 
power of the word of God 462 

APPENDIX. 

Of prayer as a means of grace 467 

ARTICLE XIII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OR 
CHURCH. 

134. What is meant by the Christian church ; its ob- 

ject; its names; and the divisions of the 
church common in theology 469 

135. Attributes of the Christian church ; the ecclesi- 

astical terms commonly employed to desig- 
nate them, and their signification 472 

136. Of the head of the Christian church; and of the 

institutions established to maintain and ex- 
tend it, especially through the office of public 
teaching 475 

ARTICLE XIV. 

THE TWO SACRAMENTS — BAPTISM AND THE 
LORD'S SUPPER. 

137. The sacraments in general 479 

CHAP. I. 

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

138. Names, institution, and origin of Christian 

baptism; with observations on John the 
Baptist and the Jewish baptism of prose- 
lytes 483 

139. How and by whom baptism is to be adminis- 

tered; and respecting the optional and un- 
essential things attending the observance of 
this rite 485 

140. Object, uses, and effects of Christian baptism . . 488 

141. The necessity of baptism, and whether it may be 

repeated 491 

142. The baptism of infants 494 



CHAP. II. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
SECT. PAGE 

143. The names of the Lord's Supper ; and the oc- 

casion and objects of its institution 496 

144. The distinction between what is essential and 

unessential in the celebration of the ordi- 
nance of the Supper 500 

145. The uses and efficacy of the Lord's Supper; and 

inferences from these 505 

146. The various opinions and forms of doctrine re- 

specting the presence of the body and blood 
of Christ in the Lord's Supper, historically 
explained, and also a critique respecting them 508 

ARTICLE XV. 

ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DESTINY OF 
. MEN AFTER DEATH ; OR THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING 
THE LAST THINGS. 

147. Death 514 

148. The Christian doctrine of the continuance of the 

human soul, and its state aftervdeath . . . . 516 

149. Historical illustrations of the various opinions 

which have prevailed in ancient and modern 
times respecting the continuance of the soul 
after death ; and the proofs drawn from rea- 
son in favour of it 519 

150. Some of the most important of the various 

opinions respecting the place of departed 
souls, and their condition there 523 

151. What is understood by the resurrection of the 

dead ; the meaning of the word " resurrec- 
tion;" and what is taught respecting it by 
the Jews 527 

152. The Christian doctrine respecting the resurrec- 

tion of the body 531 

153. Doctrine of the New Testament respecting the 

nature of the body which we shall receive at 
the resurrection; and the opinions of theolo- 
gians on this point 534 

154. The last appearing of Christ before the end of the 

world ; the various opinions on this subject ; 
also respecting the Millennial kingdom, and 
the universal conversion of Jews and Gentiles 538 

155. The general judgment, and the end of the pre- 

sent constitution of the world 541 

156. The punishments of hell, or eternal condemnation 545 

157. Duration of future punishments ; reasons for and 

against their eternal duration 549 

158. Result drawn from comparing and examining 

the different arguments for and against the 
eternal duration of future punishment ; and 
a sketch of the history of this doctrine .. .. 552 



ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. 

159. Introduction to this doctrine; and explanation 

of the scriptural phraseology with regard 

to it 555 

160. What do reason and scripture teach, and lead us 

to expect, in a general view, as to the real 
nature of future blessedness 558 



TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 




AM happy in being able to 
present to the friends of bibli- 
cal theology the translation of 
Dr. Knapp's Lectures. The 
prevailing preference of the 
method adopted by this author 
above other methods of pur- 
suing theological study, leads me to 
hope that this work will be an accept- 
able offering to the public. It was the 
ultimate object of that eminent servant 
of Christ who composed these lectures, 
to promote vital piety and practical religion 
even by his more theoretical writings. If the 
translation of these lectures may conduce to the 
same end, the translator will feel abundantly 
rewarded for his labour. 

On opening a book we naturally feel a desire 
to know something of the author; and if he 
treats on controverted points, to know on what 
principles he wrote, and with whom he stood 
connected. I shall endeavour to satisfy this cu- 
riosity, by giving some account of the school of 
Biblical Theology in Germany, to which our 
author belonged, together with an outline of his 
life and character. I cannot expect, however, 
within the narrow limits of a preface, to do full 
justice to either of these subjects. 

The school of Biblical Theology was esta- 
blished by Spener at Halle, in 1694, for the 
avowed purpose of having theology taught in a 
different manner from that common in the Ger- 
man universities. Spener states that it was usual 
for persons to spend five or six years at the uni- 
versities without hearing, or caring to hear, a 
single book, chapter, or verse of the Bible ex- 
plained. In the few cases where exegetical 
lectures were commenced by such teachers as 
Olearius and Carpzov, they were soon aban- 
doned. The Bible was perhaps less used before 
the time of Spener in Protestant universities than 
it had been, under penalty of excommunication, 
by pious Catholics before the Reformation. In 
place of the Scriptures, the different symbols 
established by the Protestant church were taught 
and studied. The minutest distinctions esta- 
blished by them were contended for with the 
greatest zeal, and the least deviation from them 
was pronounced heresy as decidedly as if they 
had been given by inspiration of God, and was 
2 



punished accordingly with the greatest severity. 
The spirit of Protestantism seemed to have 
thrown off the hierarchal yoke, only to assume 
another and perhaps a more degrading form of 
bondage. In explaining and defending these 
symbols, the Aristotelian dialectics were em- 
ployed, and in the use of them the students were 
thoroughly exercised. As to the practical effect 
which the doctrines of Christianity should have 
upon their own hearts, and the manner in which 
they should exhibit them for the benefit of others, 
nothing was said to them by their teachers. 
Thus disciplined, they went forth to repeat from 
the pulpit what they had learned at the university, 
and fought over their idle battles, in which their 
own learning and skill were carefully displayed, 
to the neglect of every thing which might arouse 
the careless, persuade the doubting, or satisfy 
the deep desires and assuage the sorrows of the 
heart. 

This was a state of things which Spener de- 
plored. Others before him, especially pious lay- 
men, had noticed these evils, but had withdrawn, 
like the mystics of a former period, and sought 
in private contemplation that satisfaction of their 
spiritual wants which they could not obtain from 
the learned jargon of the pulpit; or if, like An- 
dres and Arndt, they had lifted up a voice of 
remonstrance against the prevailing disorders, it 
had been drowned in the noise of angry pole- 
mics. But the reputation and influence of Spener 
were too great to allow his remonstrances to 
pass unnoticed. Without aiming at the name, 
he performed the work of a reformer. In the 
unpretending form of a preface to an edition of 
Arndt's Sermons, he published in 1675 his Pia 
Desiderta, in which he urged the necessity of 
amending the prevailing mode of instruction 
and preaching. It was his great object to divert 
attention from the symbols, and direct it to the 
scriptures. He wished every student to derive 
his system for himself directly from the Bible; 
and to feel and enjoy the truths thus learned, 
rather than contend about them ; and especially 
he wished the teachers in the universities, and 
the preachers in the desk, abandoning for ever 
their foolish questions and subtle dialectics, to 
labour to promote the solid instruction and the 
true piety of those committed to their charge. 
This was the object which more and more en 

9 



10 



PREFACE. 



grossed his attention, as he saw more of the 
deadening influence of scholastic theology ; and 
he at length pursued it with such zeal that 
he awakened the jealousy and hatred of those 
who loved the letter more than the spirit, the 
form of godliness more than its power. After 
removing from place to place, and being at 
length driven from Dresden by the violence of 
the opposition against him, he found refuge and 
rest in Berlin. He there exerted his influence 
with Frederick III. to procure the establishment 
of a new university at Halle. For various rea- 
sons, political and religious, his proposal was 
adopted, and to Spener was committed the or- 
ganization of the Theological Faculty. He 
selected for this purpose Anton, Breithaupt, and 
Franke, men of congenial spirit with himself, 
who had visited him in Berlin, imbibed his 
views, and were then labouring in different 
places, and under great discouragements, to 
promote the revival of scriptural knowledge and 
practical Christianity. They were now united 
in the new university at Halle ; and though de- 
nounced by the theologians of the sister univer- 
sities, and especially those of Wittemberg, as 
pietists, innovators, and heretics, they were no-t 
to be hindered from appointing a new course of 
studies, nor from pursuing a new method in 
teaching. 

The establishment of the Theological Faculty 
at Halle forms an epoch in the history of theo- 
logical science ; and to those who founded, and 
composed it, especially to Spener and Franke, 
are Protestants indebted for the revival and per- 
petuation of the spirit of the Reformation. They 
entered a new protest against the reign of eccle- 
siastical authority, and asserted anew the right 
of Christians in matters of faith. That we are 
free to judge for ourselves as to what we shall 
believe, in opposition to the decretals of Popes 
or Councils, whether Catholic or Protestant ; 
that the holy scriptures are the pure source 
whence we must draw our religious knowledge, 
and not symbols, confessions, or systems framed 
and established by men ; and that the doctrines 
of the Bible are to be used, by the learned as 
well as the unlearned, to promote holiness of 
heart and life, rather than merely as objects of 
speculation, — these were the great principles 
upon which Luther and Melancthon, Spener 
and Franke, alike proceeded. 

It is not uncommon to see the founders of this 
school classed with those narrow-minded and 
bigoted enthusiasts who regard learning and 
science with hatred and contempt, and presume 
upon a miraculous illumination, superseding the 
necessity of studying divine truth. But to this 
class Spener and Franke did not belong; and 
decided as was the stand which they took 
against the scholastic learning of the times in 
which they lived, they were far from falling 



into the opposite and equally dangerous extreme. 
Their principles respecting the study of theo- 
logy are so often misstated that I feel induced, 
after a perusal of some of their own writings, 
to exhibit them here more at length. 

I. They believed that God had revealed him- 
self directly to men, and that this revelation is 
contained in the books of the Old and New Tes- 
tament, which are the only source of our reli- 
gious knowledge, to the exclusion of those pre- 
tended revelations of which theosophy boasts. 
To obtain the meaning of these scriptures they 
made therefore the first duty of the theological 
student. In seripturis theologus nascitur, was 
their constant maxim. They did not, like their 
contemporaries in the other universities, suffer 
the student to rely indolently on the traditionary 
interpretation of the word of God, nor to adduce, 
without examination, exactly the same proof- 
texts, neither more nor less, as had been used 
in every preceding system; nor did they suffer 
him to expect, like some ancient and modern 
visionaries, that a culpable ignorance would be 
removed by supernatural illumination. On the 
contrary, they insisted upon, the importance of 
his becoming acquainted with the original lan- 
guages in which the holy scriptures were writ- 
ten, and diligently using the whole apparatus 
of hermeneutical helps, (then indeed compara- 
tively small,) in order to ascertain the very sense 
in the mind of the inspired writer. 

II. By these means, however, important as 
they are, the student attains only to what they 
called a natural, human, and literal knowledge, 
in distinction from a spiritual and divine percep- 
tion of the doctrines of revelation. The sacred 
writers d id not invent new words and expressions 
to designate the new relations to God into which 
men were brought by Christianity, and the feel- 
ings belonging to those relations; but rather 
employed language used to designate relations 
and feelings previously known, analogous to 
those intended. To every man, therefore, their 
language, even with respect to the peculiar 
states of which the Christian is conscious, con- 
veys a general meaning — viz., the notion of 
something in the thing intended, answering to 
something in the analogous relation or feeling 
from which the representation is taken. But 
what is the very thing, among the many things 
in this new relation, which would justify the 
metaphor, — what is the very thing intended by 
the evangelist or the apostle in the use of it, can 
be understood only by one who has in reality 
been brought into this new relation, and expe- 
rienced the feelings belonging to it. To be more 
definite: the new relation instituted by Chris- 
tianity is most frequently denoted in the sacred 
writings by the words sonship, adoption, and 
those of a similar import, which clearly convey 
to every reader a general notion of what this 



PREFACE. 



11 



new relation is ; and this general notion is the 
literal knowledge of the subject which the na- 
tural man may possess. Bat there are many 
things in the human relation of a son to a father 
which might be the foundation of the metaphor 
employed. Resemblance, imitation, obedience, 
love, or actual descent and possession of the 
same nature, and many other things which 
might be mentioned, would furnish a proper 
foundation for the metaphor of sonship and 
adoption. And so these have all been made by 
different commentators the point of analogy be- 
tween this common and this Christian relation. 
But what is the very thing in this new relation 
which the evangelists and apostles had in view 
when they called it sonship, he only can under- 
stand who, by believing in Christ, has had the 
power given him to become a son of God. And 
even he will understand it better in proportion 
to the depth and liveliness of his Christian ex- 
perience, and then only attain to its full import 
when, in the world of glory, what is here begun 
in him shall be perfected. This is the spiritual 
perception spoken of, arising from the personal 
experience of the things signified in the holy 
scriptures ; and this experience results from 
faith, which receives the doctrines of revelation 
in their sanctifying and enlightening power. 
Faith, therefore, has the same relation to divine 
things that sense has to natural things ; and it is 
equally true in one case as in the other, that 
sense or experience is the only foundation of 
knowledge,— -sensus est principium cognoscendi. 
This seems to be the meaning of Spener and 
Franke when they say so often that the Holy 
Spirit is indispensable to the study of theology. 
That this personal experience, or feeling percep- 
tion, must precede all true knowledge of the 
things of revelation,— in other words, that the 
doctrines of the Bible must be felt, in order to 
be truly understood, have root in the heart before 
they can be rightly apprehended by the under- 
standing, — though often deemed an exploded 
proposition, and in the ears of many perfectly 
paradoxical, is yet as philosophically just as it 
is conformed to scripture. This view cannot 
be better expressed than in the following re- 
markable words of Pascal : — " Les verites di- 
vines sont infiniment au-dessus de la nature. 
Dieu seul peut les mettre dans l'ame. II a 
voulu qu'ils entrent du cceur dans l'esprit, et 
non pas de l'esprit dans le coeur. Par cette 
raison, s'il faut connaitre les choses humaines, 
pour pouvoir les aimer, il faut aimer les choses 
divines, pour pouvoir les connaitre.' 1 ' 1 "Divine 
things are infinitely above nature, and God only 
can place them in the soul. He has designed 
that they should pass from the heart into the 
head, and not from the head into the heart; 
and so, as it is necessary to know human 
things in order to love them, it is necessary to 



love divine things in order to know them." Let 
not the student, then, who would penetrate into 
the real meaning of the sacred text, rely upon 
the Grammar and the Lexicon, upon Commen- 
taries and Institutes of Interpretation, which 
cannot lead beyond the letter. All true know- 
ledge of the scripture must proceed from the life 
of faith ; we must believe in order to experience, 
and experience in order to understand. Such is 
the import of the following words of Anselmus, 
which have been chosen by Schleiermacher, one 
of the profoundest theologians in Germany, for 
his motto, and which deserve to be engraven on 
the memory of every student in theology : — 
" Non enim qusero intelligere ut credam, sed 
credo ut intelligam. Nam qui non crediderit, 
non experietur, et qui expertus non fuerit, non 
intelliget." 

III. When the literal sense of scripture has 
been ascertained by grammatical and historical 
interpretation, and when the hidden meaning of 
the sacred hieroglyphics has been unlocked by 
a believing experience of the things signified, 
then are the materials provided for theological 
science ; as yet, however, confused and disor- 
ganized. With these insulated experiences, and 
the direct processes of the spiritual life, many 
would have us remain contented, and are jealous 
of the reflective and systematizing acts of the 
mind. This is the mistake of the Mystici im- 
puri, and of many sincerely pious, but less en- 
lightened Christians in modern times. They 
justly ascribe much of the coldness, contention, 
and heresy that has disturbed and corrupted the 
church, to the influence of speculative reason, 
and would gladly exclude it wholly from the 
province of faith. But they overlook the im- 
perfections of religion when it exists merely as 
feeling, and the darkness, confusion, and extra- 
vagance which result from the want of strict 
science in the doctrines of Christianity. These 
evils are not merely incidental to simple faith, 
but almost inseparable from it; for what can 
prevent that exaggeration of its particular ob- 
jects, to which feeling always tends, and give 
to each its due importance, but that view of the 
whole which science alone can furnish 1 These 
evils were not overlooked by Spener ; and he 
contended for the proper use of system and 
science in religion with a zeal only inferior to 
that with which he contended against their 
abuse. He held the just medium between the 
pious enthusiast and the cold speculator; and 
wished that the system might proceed from a 
living faith and be pervaded by it, and that faith 
might be regulated and rectified by thorough 
system ; and he thus aimed to secure to Chris- 
tianity, what it may justly claim, the whole man; 
the powers of the understanding and the feelings 
of the heart. 
The effort to attain to an insight into the in 



12 



PREFACE. 



ternal connection of the various objects of our 
experience, to attain to the one principle under 
which the phenomena we witness may be class- 
ed, — the effort, in short, which lies at the foun- 
dation of science in every department, is one of 
the original and higher efforts or instincts of the 
human soul ; and though in some periods, and 
in individual minds, it is less predominant, at 
other times, and in other minds, it is wholly 
irrepressible. Its utility in reducing to order 
the disconnected elements of human knowledge, 
and in constructing from them an organized 
whole, cannot be questioned ; and why should 
not this systematizing, organific instinct of the 
mind be suffered to employ itself upon the no- 
bler elements of religious knowledge, scattered 
over the page of revelation and of experience, 
collecting and classifying them, and from them 
constructing an harmonious system of religious 
truth 1 

Here it must be remarked, that a believing 
experience is equally essential to a truly scien- 
tific combination of all the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity as to an adequate understanding of each 
particular one. In every scientific system, the 
parts should have a real relation to one great 
object, for which the whole is constructed ; and 
if we would have it a living, and not a lifeless 
organization, we must have this great object 
within ourselves. The name of science cannot 
justly be applied to a mere artificial collocation 
of particulars, wanting internal unity, and desti- 
tute of a pervading soul. Hence it may be safely 
affirmed, that true theological science is possible 
only on condition of personal Christian expe- 
rience; this alone can furnish the last end, the 
point of unity, the living spirit of the whole. 
Where this does not exist, combining the re- 
sults of the mere philological study of the Bible 
furnishes at best a piece of lifeless mechanism, 
where the parts cohere, as the cards in the pup- 
pet, and not as the limbs in the body. It was 
from the exegetical school in Asia Minor, and 
from the feet of the philologist Lucian, that the 
heresiarch Arius proceeded ; and his error arose, 
in a great measure, from his making the Bible 
grammatically interpreted, separately from the 
light of experience, the foundation of theology.* 
The elements of theological science should not, 
therefore, be drawn solely from the written page 
of revelation ; the contents of this page must be 
first transferred to the tablets of the heart; these 
inward tablets must then be studied, and strictly 
compared with the outward letter ; and from this 
faithful and living transcript, corresponding 
with the original revelation, and from this reve- 
lation thus transferred to the heart, the elements 
of the system must be derived. The direction 
here given, to make the results of Christian ex- 



* Vide Neander, Allgem. Kirchengeschichte, b. 
ii. Abth. 2, £i 770. 



perience, derived from and regulated by the 
written word, rather than the mere fruits of the 
exegetical study of the Bible, the elements of 
theological science, is, I believe, in the spirit 
of the founders of this school of biblical and 
practical Christianity. Theological study is 
happily turning more and more to the inward 
scroll of experience ; and instances might easily 
be mentioned, did my limits permit, in which 
the established ecclesiastical system has been 
rectified, by being made to answer more entirely 
to the demands of pious feeling.* When Chris- 
tian faith shall receive and hold the pure and 
unadulterated truths of revelation, and Christian 
theology shall wholly correspond to Christian 
faith, then will the science of Christianity attain 
its highest perfection. 

IV. The system of truth which was adopted 
by the founders of this school agreed substan- 
tially with that of their contemporaries, although 
the eagle-eyed malignity of Deutschmann of 
Wittemberg espied no less than two hundred 
and sixty heresies in a single writing of Spener. 
The latter, however, and his associates, professed 
to hold the doctrines contained in the established 
symbols, and differed from the theologians of 
the other universities only with respect to the 
grounds on which they believed them, and the 
ends for which they employed them. While 
their contemporaries believed in these doctrines 
because they were contained in the symbols, the 
theologians of Halle believed them because, 
after independent investigation, they found them 
contained in the word of God, and confirmed by 
their own experience. And while their con- 
temporaries employed these doctrines for no 
other purposes than speculation and contention, 
they insisted that the doctrines of revelation should 
be taught in the universities, as well as exhibited 
in the pulpit, vAth the ultimate design of promot- 
ing personal piety \ This was their fourth gene- 
ral principle respecting the study of theology, - 
and that which procured for their school the 3f 
honourable distinction of a school of practical "^ 
theology. They regarded it as almost certain 
that students in theology would treat the doc- 
trines of Christianity as public teachers very 
much as they had been accustomed to hear them 
treated at the university, — that if they had been 
taught theology in a scholastic method, they 
would probably fall into the same method in 
preaching. Such had really been the effect of 
the speculative turn given to theological instruc- 
tion. Students of theology had come from the 
university expert and disputatious metaphysi- 
cians, rather than evangelical pastors, well 
qualified by their own experience of divine truth 
to impart it with sincerity and earnestness to 
others ; and the piety of the church wanting its 



* Vide Schleiermacher, in the last article in hia 
Zeitschrift," s. 29, and especially s. 299—304. 



PREFACE. 



13 



proper nutriment, the simple truth of the gospel 
had long been declining. The first theologians 
at Halle sought to remedy these evils at their 
very source, to apply the doctrines of salvation 
to their own case, and keep their own hearts 
alive to the practical influence of revealed truth ; 
and then to induce their hearers to abstain from 
useless questions, and see to it that they them- 
selves were builded upon that foundation, which 
it would be their duty to point out to others, and 
to show them how the doctrines of the Bible 
should be exhibited in order to answer the ends 
for which they were given — the conviction and 
conversion of sinners, and the consolation and 
encouragement of believers. It was in pursu- 
ance of these objects that Franke delivered his- 
" Lectiones ParaBneticse," which were followed 
by more real and lasting benefit than any other 
part of his academical labours. They were first 
delivered by him in his own study, and after- 
wards in the public hall of the theological fa- 
culty, one hour a week — viz., from 10 to 11 
o'clock on Thursday, when other exercises were 
suspended, that all the students in the theologi- 
cal department might be at liberty to attend. 
In the preface to the first collection of these 
lectures, Franke gives the following account of 
them : — " I have not been accustomed to follow 
any particular method in these lectures, but 
have made it my rule to say on each occasion 
what I saw then to be most necessary to the 
students in theology, either to promote their 
thorough conversion and Christian walk, or the 
wise and orderly prosecution of their studies, 
that they might be at length sent forth as faith- 
ful, wise, and useful labourers in the vineyard 
of the Lord, each according to the gift granted 
to him by Cod." 

Such were the principles of the founders of 
the university at Halle respecting the study of 
theology ; and it deserves to be remarked that 
on these principles, and these alone, theology is 
a distinct and independent science. On these 
principles, it is the science of truths revealed by 
God and received by faith, and is thus, in a two- 
fold sense, divine — viz., as to the original source 
of its truths, and the organ through which they 
are transmitted to the reflecting mind ; that faith 
which the Holy Spirit produces in the heart. 
It is in this way distinguished from all human 
sciences ; not that the scientific effort of the 
mind (the effort to bring connexion and unity 
into our various experiences) is different in the 
two cases, for this is not supposed; but that the 
materials about which this scientific effort is 
employed are different in theology and in human 
sciences. This is a distinction which the im- 
mortal Bacon acknowledges in a passage which 
deserves careful consideration at the present 
time: — "Scientiaaquarum similis est; aquarum 
ali® descendunt coslitus, alia? emanant e terra. 



Etiam scientiarum primaria partitiosumendaest 
ex fontibus suis; horum alii in alto siti sunt; 
alii hie infra. Omnis enim scientia duplicem 
sortitur informationem. Una inspiratur divini- 
tus; aliter oritur a sensu. Partiemur igitur 
scientiam in theologiam et philosophiam. Theo- 
logiam hie intelligimus inspiraium, non natura- 
lem."* By this division of the sciences accord- 
ing to their sources, a perfect independence of 
all others is secured to theology. The believer 
in revelation draws the doctrines of his creed 
from a higher source, and so holds them with 
perfect certainty, without waiting for the results 
which may be attained in the lower sphere of 
philosophy. Indeed, he considers them not only 
as true, but as the test and standard of all truth, 
and so he looks without fear for the stability of 
his faith upon the highest advances of light and 
knowledge. Are any discoveries alleged, or 
any hypotheses maintained in opposition to the 
truths of revealed religion, he presupposes the 
latter to be true, and concludes that the former, 
however plausibly supported, are false. In short, 
he acknowledges the correctness of the princi- 
ples of science and philosophy only so far as 
they admit a source and order of truth above 
their measure ; and the validity of their results 
only so far as they illustrate and confirm, or at 
least are consistent with, the doctrines and facts 
of revelation. This is indeed an elevated stand, 
but one which the believer in revelation is en- 
ticed to assume, and has always been able to 
maintain. Where is the declaration of Scripture 
which has been fairly disproved by philosophy, 
or by any of the sciences, most of which have 
begun to exist since the Bible was written] On 
the other hand, how universally have the theo- 
ries and alleged discoveries, which were sup- 
posed to invalidate the Scriptures, proved in the 
end false and imaginary. From every attack 
of an infidel philosophy the truth of revelation 
has come off triumphant, justifying the confi- 
dence of those who implicitly receive it, and 
putting to shame the exultation of unbelievers. 
So far from bringing up the rear, the science of 
revelation has led the van in this general march 
of knowledge and improvement, and has in many 
cases from the first held forth truths which phi- 
losophy afterwards adopted when it became 
more enlightened. j" 

How unworthy, then, of the dignity and inde- 
pendence of the true theologian is the procedure 
of some of the modern professors of theological 
science, who are ready to relinquish the clearest 
doctrines of the Bible on the first semblance of 
discrepancy between them and a philosophy 
which acknowledges no revelation. There are 



* De dignit. et augm. Scientia. 1. iii. cap. 1. 

t Consider — e. g., the doctrine of creation from 
nothing, long a doctrine of theology, but only lately 
of philosophy. 



B 



14 



PREFACE. 



many styled theologians who do not hesitate 
to abandon such truths as the creation of the 
world, the fall of man, native corruption, vica- 
rious atonement, future resurrection, heaven and 
hell, on the first flourish of arms from the corps 
of infidel dilettanti. But they forget that geo- 
logy, anthropology, and the kindred sciences, 
which they seem to consider infallible, are from 
their very nature as experimental, incomplete, 
and cumulative, continually leaving earlier re- 
sults behind. They forget that there are other 
hypotheses equally supported which tend to 
confirm revelation, and that what God has spo- 
ken — the firm prophetic and apostolic word — is 
not subject to human revision. By their gra- 
tuitous concessions to philosophy and science, 
they deprive Christian theology of its proper 
elements, and Christian faith of the ground of 
its reliance. They make the great truths upon 
which the heart must rest for consolation and 
hope, dependent upon the advances of the expe- 
rimental sciences. We are thus left to drift 
about on this dangerous sea, while the holy 
heights to which we once lifted our eyes, and 
beheld them kindled with the revealed glory of 
heaven to guide us on our passage thither, now 
burn only with the uncertain fires of this modern 
illumination. These are, indeed, unhappy con- 
sequences, but we are told they are inevitable. 
Theologians, it is said, have no choice left them, 
and must adopt the splendid results which are 
every day disclosed in all departments of know- 
ledge; and if they would not suffer theology to 
fall into contempt, must admit some compromise 
between its antiquated doctrines and the rapid 
progress of light. To effect this compromise is 
the office assigned to modern rationalism by 
one of its ablest apologists. Rationalism, says 
Bretschneider,* designs to restore the interrupt- 
ed harmony between theology and human sci- 
ences, and is the necessary product of the scien- 
tific cultivation of modern times. But whence 
the necessity of this compromise ] It is a ne- 
cessity with which the believer in revelation 
can never be pressed, and which certainly was 
was not felt by theologians of the old stamp. 
They had not asserted their independence of the 
pope and the schoolmen only to yield it again 
to the empiric ; and as to the advantages of this 
compromise, what has really been accomplished 
by this far-famed rationalism after all its pro- 
mises 1 It professed friendship for C hristianity, 
but has proved its deadly foe; standing within 
the pale of the church, it has been in league 
with the enemy without, and has readily adopt- 
ed every thing which infidelity could engender, 
and as studiously rejected every thing which true 
philosophy has done to confirm the truths of re- 
velation. It promised to save theology from 



Vide his " Sendschreiben," s. 78. 



contempt; and how has this promise been per- 
formed] In the days of Spener, theology was 
the queen of sciences, so acknowledged by the 
mouth of Bacon, Leibnitz, Haller, and others, 
their chosen oracles. She wore the insignia of 
divinity, and " filled her odorous lamp" at the 
very original fountain of light; but, in an evil 
hour, she took this flattering rationalism to her 
bosom. Now, stripped of every mark of divi- 
nity, cut off from her native sources of light, and 
thrust out into the dark, this foolish virgin is 
compelled to say to her sister sciences, " Give 
me of your oil, for my lamp has gone out." 

The establishment of the school of theology 
at Halle forms, as was above remarked, an epoch 
in the history of this science. It gave an im- 
pulse which is still felt both for good and for evil, 
and which will probably be still felt for many 
ages to come. To the direct influence of this 
school, considered as reviving and perpetuating 
the spirit of the Reformation, may be attributed 
all the favourable results of free and unshackled 
inquiry in matters of faith. To its indirect in- 
fluence — to the abuse of the principles upon 
which it was established — must be ascribed 
those unprecedented evils which have been 
lately inflicted upon the German church. In one 
way or another, this school stands connected 
with those great diverging tendencies, whose 
violent conflict have made the last period of 
theological development more interesting and 
important than any which have preceded. The 
principles of Spener, made effective by the la- 
bours of his faculty at Halle, are the secret 
leaven which has wrought all this commotion in 
the once lifeless mass of orthodoxy. It would 
be highly interesting to follow down the history 
of this school, and trace minutely the salutary 
influence of its principles, as far as they have 
been observed, and the evils resulting from the 
abuse of them. My narrow limits, how T ever, 
will permit me only to describe very briefly the 
issues of these principles in pietism on the one 
hand, and rationalism on the other, and to show 
in what points these two opposing directions 
deviate from the just medium of this Protestant 
school of biblical and practical theology, to 
which they both claim to belong. 

We have seen, that according to the principles 
of this school, faith and science, italic, and <yy«- 
tjic,, are made essential to the theologian. And 
in the early teachers of this school, and some 
of their immediate successors, we have fine ex- 
amples of the just balance and mutual influence 
of piety and learning. Their piety was regular, 
enlightened, and uniform, through the influence 
of their knowledge of religious tmth; while 
their knowledge was humble, vital, and sound, 
through the influence of faith and piety. But 
one acquainted with the imperfection of human 
nature, and with the history of the church, coul 



PREFACE. 



15 



hardly expect that this happy combination 
would long continue. Piety, which has its seat 
in the feelings, has ever tended to shun the 
restraints and regulations which reflection and 
system impose ; and speculation has been equally 
prone to dissociate itself from piety, and to 
abandon the Word of God and Christian faith 
as the only foundation of religious knowledge. 
At an early period of the church, we see the 
practical and theoretical spirit in violent oppo- 
sition, under the peculiar forms and names of 
montanism and gnosticism. At a later period in 
the western church, the elements of rttffT'tj and 
yvwtjtj were again separated and in conflict, 
assuming the new type of mysticism and scholas- 
ticism. And in the period now under conside- 
ration, the same contention again exists, under 
the still different aspect of ascetic pietism and 
rationalism. The practical tendency of the 
founders of this school, being unaccompanied 
in some of their successors by the theoretical 
tendency, degenerated into a dark, ascetic, 
bigoted pietism. Their theoretical tendency, 
being in others of their successors separated 
from the practical, — the head divorced from the 
heart, degenerated into that cold and malignant 
form of speculation known by the name of ra- 
tionalism. 

The first instance in the latter period in which 
we discover the incipient alienation of the prac- 
tical from the theoretical direction of mind, is 
the opposition which arose at Halle to the phi- 
losophy of Wolf. It was very natural for theo- 
logians to feel, that Wolf allowed too much 
scope to speculative reason when he attempted 
to demonstrate the highest problems of meta- 
physics, the existence of God, the immortality 
of the soul, the freedom of* the will, &c, with 
mathematical precision and certainty. And in 
condemning these assumptions of reason re- 
specting matters of faith, the theologians of 
Halle only anticipated the sentence which Kant 
and his followers afterwards pronounced upon 
the dogmatism of the earlier philosophy. The 
jealousy in guarding the province of faith against 
the invasions of speculative reason thus excited, 
was heightened by the writings of the English 
and French deists and free-thinkers, then begin- 
ning to be known and circulated in Germany. 
Upon these writings they looked with abhor- 
rence ; and at length the thought naturally arose, 
that if such were the results of philosophy, it 
was the foe of religion, and should be wholly 
discarded. But when they arrived at this partial 
and rash conclusion, and acted according to it, 
they fell into the excesses with which the same 
mistake has always been attended. From the 
neglect and contempt of scientific cultivation, 
their views of divine truth soon became super- 
ficial. Their piety became more and more a 
matter of mere feeling, and, wanting the re- 



straints of reflection, degenerated into wild en- 
thusiasm, or dark, severe, and ostentatious 
bigotry. These results have almost invariably 
followed an undue jealousy of learning in mat- 
ters of faith, and teach, in a language too loud 
and distinct to be disregarded, the importance 
of a thorough acquaintance with systematic the- 
ology. Too much practical religion we cannot 
have; but that the highest purity and safety of 
the church demand more attention than is usu- 
ally paid in this country to the science of the 
Christian religion, can hardly be questioned. 
It should be remembered, that it was upon this 
degenerate and corrupt pietism, which began to 
infect the body of the church when the science 
of religion was neglected, that the corrosive 
poison of infidelity first seized and fed. Had 
the ardent and practical piety of all the succes- 
sors of the first teachers at Halle been associated 
with the theoretical spirit, as it. was inFreyling- 
hausen, Baumgarten, and a few others, infidelity 
could never have made such ravages in the 
church. 

Far more fatal, however, is the other of the 
above-named divergences from the principles of 
the biblical school of theology. Speculation on 
the subject of religion, where living faith is not 
associated with it, is attended with a twofold 
danger. The true spiritual understanding of the 
truths of religion being dependent upon the 
principle of faith, where this does not exist, error 
in doctrine is almost inevitable. But, what is 
more important to be considered, the only anti- 
dote to the pride and blindness of natural reason 
is the corrective, sanctifying influence of faith 
as a living principle in the heart. Where reason 
is unhumbled, and its disorders are unrectified 
by the pervading influence of true piety, its ex- 
ercise on the subjects of religion cannot be salu- 
tary, or even safe. The unbeliever is therefore 
doubly disqualified for forming a right judgment 
upon the particular doctrines of religion, and for 
combining them into a correct system ; he wants 
that experience by which alone he can truly un- 
derstand them, and that humility and reverence 
for the deep things of God, which is the only 
spirit of inquiry congenial with the truths of the 
gospel. 

The nature and effects of rationalism, the 
great object of which is, to deny that the Holy 
Scriptures and Christian faith are the only and 
essential foundation of religious science, and to 
proclaim the reason of man as the source and 
arbiter of the truths of religion, has been already 
briefly described. A few words in addition, re- 
specting its relation to this protestant school of 
theology, will be sufficient for my present object. 
It is well known that rationalists profess to act 
in accordance with the principles of protestant- 
ism, when they carry their freedom of investi- 
gation even to the point of denying alike the 



16 



PREFACE. 



fact and the possibility of revelation. But this 
freedom is entirely different from that for which 
the protestants contended. In performing 1 their 
work as protestants, they assumed both the fact 
and authority of revelation. They had, indeed, 
in the legitimate use of reason, well investigated 
these points, and did not receive the Scriptures 
as the word of God without conclusive evidence. 
But they contended only for entire freedom from 
ecclesiastical authority in determining what the 
Scriptures, admitted to be a revelation from God, 
really taught to men. They asserted the right 
of the Christian believer to derive the truths of 
Christianity from revelation itself, in contradis- 
tinction to the authority of any uninspired men ; 
but by no means the right of any man to receive 
or reject at option the fact or the authority of a 
revelation. This right, by whomsoever claimed, 
is not the right which Luther or Spener advo- 
cated. In performing their work as reformers, 
they thus assumed the principles which ration- 
alists deny. They came forward appealing to 
the testimony of Christ, of prophets and apos- 
tles, against the errors and abuses of the church. 
Rationalists claim fellowship with them, while 
they question and deny the validity of this very 
testimony. The protestants did not undertake 
to lay another foundation than that which is laid ; 
and wished only to prove the work of every man 
who builds thereon. But rationalists strike at 
the foundation itself; they set aside the whole 
historic basis of Christianity, and would sub- 
stitute for the unerring word of God and Chris- 
tian faith, which are the same in every age, the 
fallible, unsanctified, and changing reason of 
man. The protestants were reformers only, but 
rationalists are innovators and revolutionizes, 
aiming to overturn the whole Christian system. 
The protestants, in short, protested against the 
errors of the Romish church ; rationalists, against 
the truth of the gospel. It must be obvious, 
then, that rationalism can claim but little kin- 
dred with the true spirit of protestantism, and 
bears a much nearer affinity to that wild, revo- 
lutionary, infidel spirit, which arose at nearly 
the same time in France, and swept over the 
face of Europe. 

It would be a mistake also to suppose, that 
rationalism, like the Alexandrine Gnosis, or the 
scholasticism of the middle ages, is objection- 
able only in the excess to which it carries spe- 
culation on subjects of faith. This excess is 
indeed contrary to the maxims which we have 
been considering, which require a just propor- 
tion between faith and knowledge. It is not so 
much, however, the quantity as the quality of 
speculation, which constitutes the malignity of 
rationalism. It is speculation without the cor- 
rective influence of a sanctified heart; it is rea- 
son in all its natural pride and darkness, un- 
humbled and unenlightened by divine influence; 



it is science wanting that heavenly charitas, 
cujus mixtio, says Bacon, temperat scientiam, 
eamque saluberrimam efficit, and without which, 
omnis scientia malignum quid habet venenosum- 
que, fiatuosia symptomatibus plenissimum ; it is 
this character and quality of speculative reason, 
and not its mere excess, which makes rational- 
ism the terror and abhorrence of religion. 

These diverging tendencies had already be- 
come distinct when our author appeared upon 
the stage, and the theologians of Halle were 
then divided into different schools, according as 
they adhered more closely to the principles of 
Spener and Franke, or fell in either with the 
more ascetic or the more free and liberal princi- 
ples then prevailing. His father had been elect- 
ed in 1737 to the theological faculty at Halle, 
and was associated with the younger Franke in 
the direction of those institutes of learning and 
charity which are generally known by the name 
of the Orphan House. He had seen the exam- 
ple, and heard the instructions, of the founders 
of the university, and was one of the few who 
had walked in their footsteps. He laboured, 
though with a mildness and moderation which 
won the praises even of his opponents, to pro- 
mote practical Christianity, in opposition to the 
bold and reckless speculations of some of his 
colleagues. His only son, the author of these 
lectures, George Christian Knapp, was born in 
the Orphan House at Glaucha in Halle on the 
17th of Sept., 1753, and received his eaily educa- 
tion in the Royal Pagdagogium, one of the cluster 
of institutes there established by Franke.* In a 
brief account which he himself has given of his 
early life, he mentions a fact not a little credit- 
able to the personal character of his father. 
" Nee tamen acquievit pater," says he, " in pub- 
lica ilia, qua in scholis fruebar institutione ; sed 
ubi vacuus a negotiis erat, ipse me instituit; et 
quid in schola profecissem percunctando cogno- 
vit, variis que exercitationibus, ingenium exci- 
tare et judicium acuere studuit." 

He entered the university at Halle, Sept. 1770, 
in the 17th year of his age, and there attended 
the lectures of Semler, the first herald of the 
false illumination then breaking upon the world, 
and of Noesselt, Gruner, and others, who were 
one in feeling and action with Semler. During 
the first year of his course, he sustained a great 
loss in the death of his father. But in pursuance 
of his counsels, and in the very spirit of those 
early teachers at Halle whom he had been 
taught from his youth to venerate, he devoted 
himself to the study of the original Scriptures ; 
and made it his great object to become thorough- 
ly acquainted with the language, the facts, and 
the doctrines of the Bible. With what unusual 
success he prosecuted these exegetical studies, 



* For an account of these institutes, vide Biblical 
Repository, vol. i. No. I. p. SO. 



PREFACE. 



17 



may be inferred from his programm, " Ad Vatici- 
nium Jacobi," Genesis, xlix. 1 — 27, and from 
his disputation, " De Versione Alexandrina," 
both contained in his " Scripta Varii Argumen- 
ti ;" and also from his translation of the Psalms, 
all of which were composed and published, 
either during his pupilage at Halle, or shortly 
after its completion. 

While at the university he also pursued the 
study of the Latin and Greek classics with great 
zeal. Of the value of this study to the theolo- 
gian there can be little doubt. It not only pre- 
pares him to understand the language, and relish 
the beauties of the sacred classics, but furnishes 
him with those analogies of feeling and opinion 
which are highly important in the illustration of 
revealed truth. The writings of Dr. Knapp are 
everywhere enriched by the various illustrations 
of scriptural ideas, which he draws from Grecian 
and Roman literature. 

He completed his studies at Halle, in April, 
1774 ; and after an absence of a few months, 
which he spent in study at Gottingen, in visit- 
ing the most celebrated cities in Germany, and 
forming acquaintances with the most distin- 
guished men, he returned, an(| in 1775 began to 
lecture upon Cicero, and also upon the New 
Testament, and some of the more difficult por- 
tions of the Old. He was at that time in feeble 
health, and probably could hardly have believed 
that he should be continued half a century in 
the employment which he then commenced. 
The unusual approbation with which he was 
heard in these courses obtained for him the 
appointment, first of Professor Extraordinary 
(1777), and then of Professor Ordinary (in 1782). 
In addition to his exegetical courses, he now 
lectured on church history and Jewish and 
Christian antiquities. But he was not, like the 
great majority of the professors in the German 
universities, employed merely in academical 
labours. On the death of Freylinghausen (1735), 
he and Niemeyer were appointed Directors of 
Franke's .Institutes, and continued jointly to 
superintend these noble and extensive establish- 
ments for more than forty years. In the division 
of duties, the oversight of the Bible and mis- 
sionary establishment fell to Dr. Knapp, and 
he was thus brought into connection with the 
Moravian brethren. 

It was in the summer of the same year in 
which he received this appointment, and after 
r.e had often lectured on subsidiary branches, 
that he commenced the composition of the lec- 
tures on theology now presented to the public. 
As he continued his regular courses in exegesis 
and history, was occupied partly in the concerns 
of the institutes, and was moreover often inter- 
rupted in his studies by severe illness, he did 
not complete them before the summer of 1789, 
when he first read them before a class of 186. 
3 



After this time he continued to lecture on theo- 
logy (though latterly in shorter courses) until 
near his death, and always to numerous audi- 
tories. 

But while his life passed away in these pur- 
suits so congenial to his taste, he was not freed 
from those pains and sorrows which are the 
common lot of man. His peaceful professional 
career was frequently interrupted by the poli- 
tical disorders of the times, and the repeated 
occupation of Halle by foreign troops. His do- 
mestic peace was also invaded by the long-con- 
tinued illness of his wife, and by the violent 
sickness with which he himself was often at- 
tacked, and the constant infirmity under which 
he laboured. These evils, however, great as 
they might be, must have appeared trivial in 
comparison with those with which he saw the 
church afflicted. He was called to behold new 
principles, which he regarded as false and dan- 
gerous, rapidly supplanting those in which he 
had been educated, and to which, from his own 
conviction, he was attached. He was compelled 
to hear the truths which he held most sacred 
and precious treated with profane levity. He 
found himself, at last, the only decided advocate 
of evangelical religion among the professors at 
Halle, and exposed to ridicule and contempt for 
teaching the very doctrines in which Spener 
and Franke had most gloried. These were trials 
under which his natural firmness and composure 
must have failed him, and in which he could be 
supported only by a pious confidence in God. 
He cherished this confidence, and through its 
influence remained unmoved during times of 
unparalleled darkness and danger. Nor was his 
confidence misplaced. Towards the close of his 
life the prospect seemed to brighten. The better 
times which Spener thought so near, but which 
had been long delayed, seemed again approach- 
ing, and it was not difficult to discern the signs 
of a new epoch at hand. On the third centennial 
festival in commemoration of the Reformation, 
which occurred in the year 1817, the slumber- 
ing spirit of the evangelical churches was 
awakened. In a programm which our author 
delivered on that occasion, and which is inserted 
in his "Scripta Varii Argumenti," he poured 
forth his pious supplications in behalf of the 
German church and his beloved university in a 
strain i>f unusual eloquence. From that time 
he had the joy of beholding the cause which he 
held most dear gradually gaining ground. His 
own reputation, too, increased with his declining 
years. And among the most cheerful passages 
in his life, is that which occurred just before its 
close. On the first of May, 1825, he had been 
fifty years connected with the theological faculty 
of the university, and, according to an established 
custom, a jubilee festival was then held in his 
honour ; and many were the marks of personal 
b2 



18 



PREFACE. 



affection and esteem, as well as the civic and 
academic honours, then heaped upon the vene- 
rable and happy jubilar. 

Not long after this, while he was continuing 
his summer course of theology, he was seized 
with a violent illness, from which he never re- 
covered. He died in peace and Christian con- 
fidence, on the 14th day of October, 1825, in the 
73d year of his age. According to his particular 
direction, his remains were interred privately, 
early on the third morning after his decease, in 
his family tomb, by the side of his wife, who 
had died eight years before. He requested, with 
that genuine modesty for which he was always 
distinguished, that in the public notices of his 
death nothing should be said to his honour, and 
that it should only be witnessed of him that he 
lived by faith in the words, "I know that my 
Redeemer liveth." 

Few are the men whose lives are so uniform, 
happy, and useful. Born and educated in the 
midst of those noble institutes which stand a 
living monument of the faith of their founder — 
blessed with the example and instructions of a 
father, high in office and eminent for excellence 
and learning, — the inheritor of his virtues, and 
called afterwards by Providence to succeed him 
both as director of Franke's Institutes and as 
theological professor, — richly provided with the 
means of improvement, and freed from the em- 
barrassments with which the acquisition of 
learning is often attended, — received with fa- 
vour at the very commencement of his profes- 
sional duties, and through all the variations of 
public opinion and feeling thronged by pupils 
who loved and revered him, — encircled in his 
family with children and friends, by whom he 
was fondly cherished, — in his old age permitted 
to witness the brightening prospects of the cause 
which was nearest his heart, and honoured with 
every mark of public confidence and esteem ; — 
he was indeed signally favoured of God. He 
was faithful in the trust committed to him, and 
found God faithful to his promises. His labour 
was not in vain in the Lord ; he was blessed 
during his life, and in death his remembrance 
does not perish. "Wherever the news shall 
reach," says Niemeyer, his colleague and eulo- 
gist, " that this gifted teacher is for ever re- 
moved from the sphere of his labours, there will 
witnesses' arise who will acknowledge how much 
they owe to his instructions ; and even beyond 
the sea his memory will be cherished and his 
name not forgotten." 

I shall close these prefatory remarks with a 
general view of the character of Dr. Knapp, and 
with some more particular information respect- 
ing the Lectures now offered to the public. 

His bodily constitution was frail and sickly, 
even from his childhood. He had a complica- 
tion of disorders, which would have consigned 



one less zealous for a life of usefulness, and less 
resolute in adopting and pursuing the means 
necessary to attain it, to an indolent and unpro- 
fitable existence, or to an early grave. That 
sickness and bodily infirmity had not this effect 
upon him, must be attributed to the exact course 
of discipline which he pursued. In all things he 
practised the most rigid temperance, and daily 
took bodily exercise in the open air, measured 
almost by the minute, and uninterrupted by any 
severity of weather. " We could hardly have 
thought," says Niemeyer, in his funeral address, 
" when we saw him, weak and exhausted, con- 
tending with the rude elements, supported by 
his pilgrim staff, that his frail earthly tabernacle 
could endure so long." Such was the effect, 
however, of the rigid discipline which he main- 
tained, that he reached an advanced age, in the 
midst of arduous public duties, in which he was 
rarely interrupted, and died at length without 
having kept his bed for a single day — an exam- 
ple worthy of the consideration of the irresolute 
hypochondriac who broods over his ailings, and 
lives a burden to himself and those about him. 
In his personal character he was rather amia- 
ble than commanding. He possessed in an 
unusual degree that mildness, benignity, and 
gentleness of disposition which wins affection, 
and that integrity, guilelessness, and perfect 
simplicity of heart which secures confidence. 
In his intercourse with others he was unassum- 
ing, and entirely free from suspicion and jea- 
lousy. He was distinguished for punctuality 
Jin the fulfilment of all his 'engagements, and 
j was one of the few men who do every part of 
duty in its proper time and place. His personal 
j faults were those which almost invariably ac- 
j company the excellent attributes of character for 
which he was distinguished — a degree of timid- 
ity, too great desire to please, and fear to offend, 
and pliability in trying emergencies, where the 
highest degree of energy is required. 

As to the religious character of Dr. Knapp, 
the evidence in favour of his strictly evangelical 
piety is clear and decisive. There is no proof of 
any sudden alteration in his views and feelings 
on the subject of personal religion, and there are 
no means, therefore, of ascertaining the precise 
period when his spiritual life commenced. His 
is one of the thousand cases in which early pa- 
rental instruction, by exciting the religious sen- 
sibilities of the soul, prepares the way, through, 
the divine blessing, for the higher life of faith. 
The influence of these early parental instructions, 
in restraining from hardening vices, and in awa- 
kening the moral impulses of the soul, cannot 
be better described than by his own words :— 
" Vitae morumque praecepta, qua; mihi puero et 
juveni a. b. parente graviter quidem, sed tarnen 
peramanter, inculcabantur, crebrseque exhorta- 
tiones ad studium pietatis in Deum ac veri 



PREFACE. 



19 



rectique amorem, menti meee tam alte infixa? 
haeserunt, ut earam raemoria nunquam deleri 
poterit. Nam post ejus obitum quoque, si forte 
adessent peccandi illecebrae, quibus tentari ju- 
venilis setas solet, statim ejus imago animo meo 
obversabatur, simulque in memoriam revocabam 
cohortationesomnemque institutionem paternam, 
qua juvenilis animus mature erat imbutus. Hac 
cura ac diligentia parentum effectum est unice, 
ut varia pericula atque incitamenta ad peccan- 
dum, quibus multos aequalium, optimse spei ju- 
venis, in academia praesertim, succumbere vidi, 
feliciter superarem." 

The good effect of these pious counsels was 
in some degree counteracted for a time by the 
extremely dangerous circumstances in which he 
was placed at the university, and especially by 
the instructions of the neological professors, 
which were as unfavourable to vital piety as 
they were to sound doctrine. He was naturally 
somewhat affected by the spirit of the times, 
though he was never carried so far as to lose his 
confidence in the authority of the Scriptures, or 
to join with the scoffers by whom he was sur- 
rounded in deriding things sacred. Through 
the blessing of God he was speedily recovered 
from this temporary aberration, and became 
more and more in earnest about his salvation. 
About the time he was chosen ordinary profes- 
sor, he began to keep a diary, on the first leaf 
of which he wrote as follows: — "I have re- 
solved to-day, with the help of God, to write 
something from time to time respecting my spi- 
ritual condition. It is my hope that by this 
means I shall render myself more observant of 
m) r whole character and conduct than, as I must 
confess to my shame, I have hitherto been. If 
by the grace of God I succeed in this, oh, how 
shall I bless this day !" It was not, however, 
until eight or ten years after this period that he 
gave that clear evidence of evangelical piety 
which he exhibited during the latter part of his 
life. In 1794 he became more decided in oppo- 
sition to the prevailing unbelief, and in the love 
and defence of truth ; and it is at this period that 
one of his eulogists* dates his conversion. The 
fact, however, probably was, that at the time 
specified the inward life of God in his soul, 
before hidden, and by adverse influences almost 
extinct, became more evident and vigorous. As 
the ways of God in leading men to Christ are 
often secret and unknown, so too is the operation 
of the Spirit d welling in believers. Its presence 
is often undiscovered ; and while it secretly 
works the mortification of sinful nature and con- 
formity to Christ, the believer himself may be 
unconscious of the inward mystery of grace ; 
and to others certainly it is wholly impercepti- 
ble. 

* Dr. Scheibel, of Breslau. 



The question when his spiritual life com- 
menced is, however, of little interest compared 
with the question, how it was exhibited, — what 
were its principal characteristics ? It has been al- 
ready remarked, that in place of the enlightened 
and scriptural piety of the first teachers of theo- 
logy at Halle, some of their successors exhibited 
a gloomy, exclusive, pharisaical religion, the 
principal marks of which were an ostentatious 
display of sanctity, and total abstinence from the 
innocent enjoyments of life. Very far from this 
was the character of Knapp's piety. With the 
deep feeling of his own unworthiness he always 
associated the genuine evangelical enjoyment 
arising from the consciousness of the Divine 
forgiveness and favour. This consciousness 
diffused a peace and composure within which 
influenced his external deportment, and made 
his religion attractive to beholders. Nor was 
the piety of Knapp of that high-toned mystical 
cast which appears in many of the speculative 
theologians of modern Germany. So intense is 
the process of sublimation to which they some- 
times subject their religious feelings, that the 
solid substance of their piety seems the while 
to be quite evaporated. To any thing like this, 
Knapp was wholly indisposed by the natural 
plainness and simplicity of his character. 
Among the most prominent characteristics of 
that piety which he exhibited is the sense of 
unworthiness, and of dependence on the grace 
of God. When on the day of his jubilee his 
merits were largely recounted, he frequently 
spoke of what he had omitted to do, and was 
prone to confess himself an unprofitable servant. 
He gratefully ascribed his success in whatever 
he undertook to the blessing of God, and espe- 
cially acknowledged him as the author of every 
good thought, word, and work. His piety was 
in a high degree active,- he was unwearied in 
his efforts to promote the prosperity and en- 
largement of the kingdom of Christ. By his 
practical writings he contributed much to revive 
the declining flame of piety in the German 
church, and by his exertions in behalf of mis- 
sions to spread the gospel over the earth. In 
the severe pains and heavy afflictions which he 
was called to endure, he honoured religion by 
his quiet submission to the will of God. His 
private walk was strictly conformed to the pre- 
cepts of the gospel; and to all with whom he 
was associated it was evident that his conver- 
sation was in heaven; and this it was which 
gave to his explanations of the Bible, his lec- 
tures on theology, and all his religious instruc- 
tions, an energy and effect unknown in the la- 
bours of those whose lives do not bear witness 
to their sincerity. 

But we are here concerned with Dr. Knap;? 
principally as a teacher and theological profes 
sor. For this office he was eminently qualified, 



30 



PREFACE. 



both by the natural endowments of his mind 
and by his acquisitions. His thoughts on the 
different subjects to which he turned his atten- 
tion were plain, natural, and solid. His know- 
ledge was deep and thorough ; and he always 
cautioned his pupils against whatever was 
showy or superficial in their attainments, as 
tending to foster that pride of learning which 
from his very soul he abhorred. To know a 
little well, rather than a great deal imperfectly, 
was his invariable direction. The clearness and 
distinctness of his conceptions rendered his style 
uncommonly lucid and perspicuous. His hear- 
ers were never left in doubt as to his meaning 
by any vagueness or indefiniteness in his ex- 
pressions. These were the qualities which 
made him so highly popular as a teacher. Al- 
though he by no means fell in with the prevail- 
ing taste of theological study, his lecture-room 
was always thronged. Students who are really 
in pursuit of the truth prefer to follow the slow, 
but certain steps of a teacher, who proceeds 
in the orderly demonstrative method, rather 
than of one who is hasty and headlong in his 
decisions. No teacher was ever more popular 
in Germany than Baumgarten, and none ever 
more logical, or painfully slow and moderate in 
his delivery. In judging of the opinions of 
others, Knapp was distinguished tor fairness and 
candour. He allowed the full weight of their 
arguments ; and while he never spared that pro- 
fane trifling and contempt with which the doc- 
trines of religion were treated by many of his 
contemporaries, he did not assume to condemn 
those who differed from him merely in opinion. 
Through the exercise of this Christian candour 
and charity, he was enabled to live in perfect 
harmony with colleagues whose system of be- 
lief and manner of instruction were directly op- 
posite to his own. 

The Lectures on Theology now offered to the 
public were composed, as has been already re- 
marked, between the years 1785 and '89, and 
first publicly read during the latter year. Al- 
though often repeated after that time, and at 
each reading corrected in minor particulars, 
they remained, in all their essential features, the 
same as when first written. This will appear 
less strange, when it is considered that the au- 
thor came to the composition of them well versed 
in all the branches of subsidiary theology. But 
there is another reason which will perfectly 
account for the stability of Knapp's theological 
system, during a period distinguished above all 
others for rapid fluctuations of opinion, and the 
rise and fall of philosophical theories. It was 
built on the sure foundation of the Holy Scriptures, 
and therefore fell not, though the rains descend- 
ed, and the floods came, and the winds blew. 
He assumed at the very outset of his theological 
course, the principle, that lead where they may, 



the decisions of inspiration are to be fearlessly 
followed. In the truth of this principle he be- 
came more and more confirmed, the more he 
saw of the uncertainty, pride, and blindness of 
human reason, in the speculations of contempo- 
rary philosophers. And most of the few changes 
which he made in his lectures were owing to 
the stricter application of this essential principle 
in cases where he had before hesitated to apply 
it, under the influence of the very different prin- 
ciples respecting the word of God which he had 
learned in the school of Semler. In his earlier 
statements respecting the doctrines of the Tri- 
nity, demoniacal possessions, the prophecies 
relating to the Messiah, the endlessness of future 
punishments, &c, as they are given by his 
German editor Thilo, he was more conformed to 
the loose and arbitrary principles of his neolo- 
gian associates, than in his later statements, 
which the reader will find in the following pages. 

In the composition of these lectures, Dr. Knapp 
followed strictly the principles of the school of 
Spener and Franke. The Holy Scriptures and 
Christian experience were the source from which 
he derived the elements of his system. He en- 
deavoured to illustrate the doctrines of revelation 
by analogies from classical writers, by showing 
to what ideas in the human mind they corre- 
spond, and what wants of our nature they are 
intended to meet, and by giving a history of the 
opinions entertained, and the various learned 
distinctions adopted respecting them in ancient 
and modern times. He then endeavoured to 
combine these doctrines, thus illustrated, into a 
thorough system. The philosophy which he 
adopted, and by which he was influenced as far 
as by any, is that popular eclectic system which 
prevailed between the downfall of Wolf and the 
ascendency of Kant. But he was especially 
faithful to the requisition, that the practical effect 
of the doctrines of revelation should be ever kept 
in view by theological teachers. Under each 
of the important doctrines he gave directions 
respecting the best mode of presenting them in 
popular discourse; and these directions consti- 
tute a very considerable part of the value of this 
work. 

I will only add a word respecting the transla- 
tion of these Lectures. I undertook it at the 
commencement of my theological studies, at the 
suggestion and with the approbation of my in- 
structed, and soon completed a hasty translation 
of most of the Articles. In correcting the copy 
and preparing it for the press, I felt myself 
tempted to relieve the tediousness of simple re- 
vision by entering upon the wide field of theo- 
logical investigation to which I was pointed by 
the references of the author, and for which the 
library in this seminary furnishes ample means. 
This was in many cases necessary to enable mo 
to understand fully the meaning of the author 



PREFACE. 



21 



These collateral studies have occasioned an un- 
expected delay in the publication of this work, 
though I hope they will contribute to render it 
more complete. I have endeavoured to bring 
down the literature of the more important Arti- 
cles to the present time, and in doing this have 
made use of the excellent Manual of Hahn of 
Leipsic, and of Bretschneider's " Dogmatik." 
I have frequently introduced important passages 
from authors referred to by Knapp, but not ac- 
cessible to readers in general. In some cases 
in which Knapp differs from the opinion com- 
monly received by theologians in this country, 
as in the doctrine of decrees ; or in which his 
statements have been corrected or mended by 
later investigations, as in some portions of the 
history of the Trinity ; I have either stated the 
opposite opinion, with the reasons for it, or re- 
ferred to authors where different statements can 
be found. It must not be inferred, however, 
that whenever this is not done, the author's 
opinions are considered to be unexceptionable. 
It should be distinctly stated, that neither the 
translator nor the gentlemen by whose advice 
this work was undertaken, are vouchers for the 
exact truth of all its doctrines. Of its general 
correctness they are well satisfied, and this is 
all for which they are respons h e 

The additions made by the translator are in- 



cluded in brackets, and are sometimes printed 
uniformly with the text, though more generally 
thrown into notes; they are in most cases, 
though not always, designated by the abbrevia- 
tion Tr. 

The translation which I have given will be 
found, if compared with the original, to be some- 
what free. I have endeavoured to express the 
meaning of the author, as he himself would have 
expressed it in English, rather than to follow 
the German, to the violation of the purity of our 
own language. The imperfect state of the ori- 
ginal text justifies a greater freedom of version 
than would otherwise be allowable. These 
lectures were published after the death of their 
author, without any alteration, from manuscripts 
which he had never prepared for the press. 
Many passages are therefore quite incomplete, 
and could be intelligibly rendered only by a 
copious paraphrase. 

I embrace this opportunity to express my 
thanks to the gentlemen who have rendered me 
assistance; and especially to my honoured 
father, to whose careful revision much of the 
correctness of this work is to be attributed. 
Leonard Woods, Jun. 

Theological Seminary, Andover, 
Sept. 26, 1831. 



INTRODUCTION. 



INTRODUCTION. 




SECTION I. 

OF RELIGION AND THEOLOGY; AND THE DIFFER- 
ENCE BETWEEN THEM. 

I. Of Religion. 

ELIGION, understood sub- 
jectively, and in the widest 
sense, is commonly defined, 
reverence for God, or piety to 
him. The objection which 
Stiiudlin and some other mod- 
ern writers have urged against 
this definition is not important enough 
to require us to abandon it. We say 
of one who performs what he acknow- 
ledges to be agreeable to the will of 
God, that he reverences God, or is pious, 
(colere deum, cultus dei.) Thus Kant defines 
religion to be, the acknowledgment of our duties 
as divine commands. It is clear that two things 
are essential to piety to God — viz., (1) The 
knowledge of God, as to his nature, attributes, 
&c; of his relation to men, and his disposition 
towards them ; and also of his will. (2) Affec- 
tions and conduct correspondent with this know- 
ledge; or the application of this knowledge. 
The science of religion, then, is that science 
which comprises every thing relative to the 
knowledge and reverence of God. The hu- 
man understanding is employed about the for- 
mer, which is called the theoretic part of reli- 
gion, (yvwcrtf, itiatis, to rtistivsw.) The hu- 
man will is employed about the latter, which is 
called the practical part of religion, (ra spya, to 
rtoitiv.) These two parts must coexist. One 
is equally essential w r ith the other. They are, 
therefore, always connected in the discourses of 
Christ and the writings of the apostles. Vide 
John, xiii. 17; Titus, i. 1; Jas. i. 22 — 27. 
Vide Moms, p. 2, biblica nomina religionis, 
<J>oj3dj ®sov, x. t. 7,. 

The correctness of this knowledge of God is 
very important in regard to our conduct. The 
human mind is compelled to conceive of God as 
the great ideal of moral perfection, and conse- 
quently, to make him the pattern for imitation. 
False notions, therefore, respecting his nature, 
attributes, and commands, are in the highest 
degree injurious to morality. 

But religion is often used in a more limited 
sense, denoting either the theoretic or the prac- 
tical part merely. And in either of these re- 



spects a man is called religious. Religion is a 
name which is also very frequently given to the 
external rites of divine service. And thus a man 
who lives devoutly, frequents public worship, 
and observes the ordinances, is called a religious 
man. But this is a perversion of the word, 
which has bad consequences. Vide Morus, s. 2, 
not. extra. 

Thus far we have considered religion subjec- 
tively — i. e., in respect to those who possess it. 
But, 

(b) The word religion is often used objectively, 
to designate the whole sum of doctrines respecting 
God and his will. But since the notions of men 
respecting God, and accordingly their piety to 
him, are very different, religion frequently sig- 
nifies in common language the manner in which 
God is regarded, according to these preconceived 
opinions. Thus we speak of the Christian, 
heathen, and Mahommedan religion — i. e., the 
manner in which God is regarded according to 
the ideas of Christians, heathen, and Mahomme- 
dans. We also speak of changing, professing, 
denying, embracing, renouncing one's religion, 
using religion in the same sense. 

Note. — The Latin word religio is derived from 
the old word religere, and from the derivative re- 
ligens, synonymous with diligens, careful, strict. 
Cic. De Nat. Deor. II. 28, and Gell. Noct. Att. 
IV. 9. It signifies, literally, strictness, punctual 
care, conscientiousness. Those who exhibited 
zeal and earnestness in the service of God, as the 
most important concern, were therefore called 
xat 1 i%o%rp, religiosi; and their conduct was 
called religio (the name of the Deity being fre- 
quently annexed) dei, or ergs. deum. The word 
religio, however, and especially the plural reli- 
giones, was most commonly used in reference to 
external worship, rites, and ceremonies. Vide 
Jerusalem, Betrachtungen iiber die Wahrheiten 
der Religion, Th. I. Vide especially, die achte 
Betrachtung. 

II. Of Theology. 

Theology is properly Xoyoj 7tspi ®eov, (like 
aatpohoyla,) and this is either narratio de deo, 
or doctrina de deo. The most ancient heathen 
Greeks used it in the first sense. Those who 
wrote the history of .the gods, their works (e. g., 
cosmogony) and exploits, in short, the mytho- 
logists, were called §s6i.oyia. Pherecydes of 
Scyros, who wrote a work entitled SsoXoyla, was 
C 25 



m 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the first who was so called. Homer and Hesiod, 
too, were theologians in this sense. Moses is 
said by Philo ^-eoJcoyetV, when he gives the his- 
tory of the creation. The fathers of the church 
use the same word, sometimes in reference to 
the doctrine concerning God as a part of all re- 
ligion, and sometimes in reference to the doc- 
trine of the divine nature of Christ, in opposition 
to olxovo/xla, the doctrine of his human nature. 
Whence the phrase, §•* ohoyelv Xpiatov or Jlvsv- 
jta aytov — i. e., to acknowledge Christ or the 
Holy Spirit as God. Vide Suicer, Thes. Eccles. 
in verb. 

But in the twelfth century, Peter Abelard 
began to employ this word to denote, particu- 
larly learned and scientific instruction in reli- 
gion. He wrote a system which he called theo- 
logia,- in which respect he was followed by 
most of the schoolmen. This use was preserved 
by most of the succeeding theologians. In the 
seventeenth century, many in the protestant 
church varied from it, and gave the name theo- 
logia to any knowledge respecting God and 
divine things, using the word in its etymologi- 
cal sense. So Musssus, Baier, and others. But 
in later times, Mosheim, Semler, and others, 
have endeavoured to revive the ancient use of 
the schoolmen. Accordingly, when theology 
is taken in abstractor as synonymous with divi- 
nity, we understand by it learned or scientific 
instruction respecting God, subtilior modus d.is- 
eendi doctrinam de deo. Morus, p. 11. 

In general, therefore, theology is the know- 
ledge of God carried to the highest degree of 
perfection in respect to correctness, clearness, 
and evidence of which it is susceptible in this 
world. And a theologian or divine is one who 
not only understands himself the doctrines of 
religion, but is able thoroughly to explain, prove, 
and defend them, and teach them to others. 

There is nothing in itself objectionable in 
using theology and divinity (Gottesgelehrsam- 
keit) as synonymous. But, as Morus observes, 
p. 11, s. 1, it is inconvenient, to say the least, to 
oppose theology to religion, and to understand 
by the latter, as many modern writers do, a 
knowledge of God which is not learned and 
scientific. Theology is employed about religion, 
and has the truths of religion for its object. The- 
ology, then, should not be opposed to religion; 
but theological instruction and the theological 
knowledge of religion, to the popular or catecheti- 
cal instruction and knowledge of religion. The 
latter is suited to men at large ; the former, only 
to the learned, or those wishing to become so. 

What we call divinity was frequently called 
by the fathers yvwcjt?, who accordingly called 
. divines yvcocrtLxoL Morus, p. 11, n. 2. Divinity 
is also called theologia scholastica, because it is 
designed for the school, or for learned instruc- 
tion ; also, theologia acroamatica, or academica, 



in opposition to popularis and catechetica, reli- 
gious instruction suited to the comprehension 
of common people. In the latter, the language 
of the school and of the science must be avoided ; 
but it cannot be in the former without the sacri- 
fice of thoroughness and distinctness. The 
terminology of this science and the mode of 
treating it have always been influenced by the 
prevailing character of the age, and the current 
philosophy. Vide s. 9. In the present state of 
the church a systematic knowledge of religion 
is indispensable even to the popular teacher. 
Morus, p. 12, s. 2, and Praef. ad Mori Epit. 
especially p. xiv. seq. He needs it, as an edu- 
cated man, for the establishment and confirma- 
tion of his own faith, and for the instruction of 
others. He should only be careful to avoid the 
systematic or scientific tone in the instruction 
of the common people and of the young, and to 
speak in an intelligible, catechetical, and popu- 
lar manner. The various abuses of the scien- 
tific language of theology do not disprove its 
utility, or decide against its proper use. Vide 
Steinbart, Griinde fur die ganzliche Abschaffung 
der Schulsprache in der Theologie, 1776, 8vo; 
and the answer, Brackmann, Apologie der 
theologischen Systemsprache; Braunschweig, 
1778, 8vo. 

Theological or scientific religion consists, as 
well as popular religion, of two principal parts: 
viz. (1) The theoretic part, or theoretic theology, 
(Glaubenslehre,) because it proposes dogmas, 
itsupr/xata, theses, propositiones de religione, 
which are discovered and established by reflec- 
tion and investigation. Vide Morus, Preef. p. v. 
seq. It is also called theologia dogmatica, (dog- 
matik.) For the explanation of this term, let 
it be observed that doypa has various significa- 
tions — viz., a resolve, decree, determination, or- 
dinance; then, in the philosophic sense, (a) an 
opinion which we have respecting any doctrine 
or principle, Col. ii. 14; (&) theprinciple or doc- 
trine (doctrina) itself. Hence Pliny expresses 
it by placitum, and Cicero by decretum,- as, de- 
creta philosophorum, Acad. II. 9. Many of the 
old fathers, as Origen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, 
employed Soyua in this sense — viz., to desig- 
nate not merely an opinion respecting certain 
principles and theoretic doctrines; but these 
principles and doctrines themselves. Used in the 
former sense, theologia dogmatica is properly 
theologia historica, a relation or exhibition of the 
opinions of theologians respecting particular 
doctrines. So, for the most part, it was used 
in the Romish church. Thus we have Petavii 
opus de dogmatibus theologorum — i. e., concern- 
ing the opinions of the fathers, &c. In this 
sense, too, it was commonly employed by pro- 
testants until the commencement of the eigh 
teenth century. Employed in the latter sense, 
theologia dogmatica is the same as /, heoretic i in 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



27 



opposition to practical or moral theology. In 
the same way, Seneca, Ep. 95, and others of the 
ancient stoics, divided philosophy into theoretic 
(dogmatica) and practical (paraenetica). This 
name of the theoretic part of theology was intro- 
duced into the protestant church principally by 
Pfaffand Buddeus, who, in 1721—23, published 
their manuals under the title, Theologia dogma- 
tica et moralis. Vide Stange, Symmicta, I. 156. 
(2) The practical part, morals, ethics. This was 
formerly always united, even in scientific in- 
struction, with the theoretic part of religion. So 
it was in Melancthon, (Loc. Theol.,) in Chem- 
nitz, and in all the systems of the sixteenth 
century. These two connected sciences were 
called theologia thetica, and the doctrines con- 
tained in them, theses, in opposition to theologia 
antithetical ox polemica, (critical theology.) Ca- 
lixtus of Helmstadt, in the seventeenth century, 
was the first who undertook to separate doctrinal 
from moral theology in scientific instruction. 
Since his time this division has remained. 

Cf. Moms, Epitome Theologies Christiana?, 
p. 1—3, s. 1—4. 

SECTION II. 

OF RELIGION - , AS THE MEANS OF THE MORAL 
IMPROVEMENT AND PERFECTION OF MEN. 

1. It is an established point that men can 
become morally better than they actually are. 
Each individual must acknowledge that he him- 
self can become morally better than he actually 
is. He thus confesses that there is a possibility , 
an internal capacity (Anlage) in his nature for 
becoming better than he is. Now this capacity 
of human nature for moral advancement is an 
incontrovertible proof that man is designed for 
a higher moral perfection than he commonly 
possesses or attains; for, from the internal 
capacity which we perceive in a thing we al- 
ways must determine its destination. From the 
nature of the seed, we conclude that it was de- 
signed to develope the germ ; from the nature 
and properties of the foot, that it was designed 
for walking, &c. It is exactly the same in re- 
spect to the whole intellectual constitution. 
Man was designed for all that for which he has 
an original capacity, and God can require of 
him no less perfection than that for which he 
has designed him. 

Note. — The true destination of man, as a rea- 
sonable being, is, ever progressive moral perfec- 
tion, (holiness, as the Bible calls it,) and the 
happiness proportionately connected with it. The 



* Refutation (antithetik) is called in the Scrip- 
tures i\eyx.cc, 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; Tit. i. 9. Hence the 
phrase theologia elenctica, hgynTtxti, (elenktik,) 
which Turretin uses. Friedmann Bechmann, a 
theologian of Jena, in the seventeenth century, 
first used the phrase, theologia polemica, and wrote 
a book under that title. Stange, ubi supra, p. 161. 



moral feeling by which we determine what is 
right or wrong, morally good or evil, is essen- 
tially founded in our very natures. Every thing 
which opposes the great end of man, or inter- 
feres with his higher destination, is morally 
evil ; and every thing which promotes this des- 
tination, or leads to this end, is morally good. 
Vide infra, sec. 51. II. 

2. Many, however, do not attain that moral 
perfection for which they were designed by God 
in the constitution which he has given them. 
In all men, without exception, in their natural 
state, we find bodily appetite predominant, and 
far more strong than moral principle. Men are 
either deficient in the power requisite to govern 
their appetites, and to perform what is good, or 
they do not properly employ the power which 
they possess. In either case the result is the 
same ; for if the powers which man possesses 
sleep unemployed, a new power is necessary to 
move, animate, and strengthen them. 

3. But man must be able to attain to that for 
which God has designed him. His destination, 
as learned from his constitution, is to increase 
continually in moral perfection. He must then 
be able to attain to this end. But man has not 
the power in himself of increasing in moral 
worth ; he must consequently obtain it else- 
where. God must have appointed a means, the 
employment of which has an efficacy in promot- 
ing the moral improvement of men, since he 
cannot be supposed to have designed them for 
an end which is absolutely unattainable. 

4. It might seem, perhaps, that this means 
should be sought in a merely philosophical 
knowledge and belief of the duties which natu- 
ral law prescribes, or in the clear and lively 
perception of moral truths. Many have held 
that man could in this way be made morally 
perfect and virtuous without religious motives. 
When men, they say, are convinced of the ne- 
cessity of obedience to the precepts of natural 
law, and believe that rewards and happiness are 
inseparably connected with obedience, they will 
find this conviction, and this hope of the reward 
which virtue always bestows, sufficient to impel 
and empower them to the practice of goodness. 

This theory might be true in application to a 
being purely rational, such as man is not. But 
it is wholly untrue in application to a being 
composed, as we are, of reason and sense. This 
philosophical reward of virtue, and consequently, 
this merely philosophical conviction, are insuf- 
ficient to prompt the more noble virtues, such 
as the sacrifice of one's own interest to the 
happiness and advantage of others. 

Experience, too, speaks clearly against the 
sufficiency of this means. It teaches that the 
fullest conviction of duty is far from giving men 
the power to overcome their sinful inclinations 
and desires. Let every one question himself on 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



this particular. Let him carefully examine one 
single day of his life. Besides, does it appear 
that the great multitude of the philosophical 
teachers of morals, in Christian and heathen 
lands, at present and formerly, are actually 
better and more virtuous, with all their clear 
light and conviction, than the great mass of 
other men ] Vide Flatt, Magazin fur Dogm. und 
Moral. St. I. s. 240. f. Tubing. 1796. 

As this means, considered separately, is in- 
sufficient, it cannot be the only one appointed 
by God. For God cannot be supposed to have 
indicated to men an insufficient means. The 
knowledge and belief of the requisitions of na- 
tural law and of moral truths are, in themselves, 
very good and necessary. But from what has 
been said, it follows that some quickening power 
is needed to give this knowledge an influence 
upon the human will, and a power to overcome 
the appetites of our animal nature. 

5. This power to overcome moral evil, and to 
perform what is morally good, is to be sought 
and found only in religion, or in our relation to 
God, or in belief in God as our supreme govern- 
or, lawgiver, and judge. This power operates 
by means of that lively conviction and assurance 
which religion imparts respecting the will of 
the supreme lawgiver, and the reward of virtue 
and punishment of vice, depending upon him. 
We neither possess, nor are acquainted with, 
any stronger power than this for promoting the 
moral perfection of the human race. This, then, 
must be the divinely appointed means, in the 
use of which men may obtain the strength which 
they need. 

In respect to religion, we find that the whole 
human race proceed in one and the same path. 
Some, indeed, deviate from it for a time, but, 
in adverse circumstances, in those hours when 
they need consolation for themselves and others, 
they soon feel the necessity of returning. It 
must, then, be according to the nature of man, of 
which God is the author, to proceed in this path. 
Let not the great variety of religions which 
frequently stand in opposition to one another, 
be objected against us. Subtracting from all 
these different religions whatever in them is 
false or incidental, there will always be left the 
idea of piety to God, and of a righteous retribu- 
tion to be expected from him, as supreme law- 
giver and judge* This idea appears among all 
people and nations, as soon as they begin to 
exercise their reason. It is, indeed, very differ- 
ently modified and developed, according to the 
difference of the circumstances and of the intel- 
lectual and moral capacity of each. But, as to 
all which is essential, the whole human race are 
agreed. And it is just this essentia] part of re- 
ligion which is the very best spring of real or 
supposed virtues, and therefore the means ap- 
pointed by God for the moral improvement of 



men. And since religion is appointed to man 
as the means of fulfilling his destiny, it must 
have truth for its foundation; for it cannot be 
supposed that God would deceive man by the 
appointment of a false and unsuitable means. 
Cf. Morus, s. 4, et passim. 

SECTION III. 

OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION. 

The knowledge of God, his moral govern- 
ment over the world, and his will, can be ob- 
tained in two ways. First, by means of nature. 
Vide Morus, p. 3, 4. s. 5, 6. This is a source 
of knowledge which even the heathen possess, 
and for the neglect of which even they have no 
excuse, Rom. i. 20. Secondly, by means of an 
immediate or direct revelation from God. Vide 
Morus, p. 7, seq. In reference to this twofold 
source of knowledge, religion has been divided 
into natural and revealed. This distinction is 
made by Paul, Rom. ii. 12, seq., coll. i. 19, seq. 
He calls the direct divine revelation rojuoj; and 
those who do not enjoy it, and know God mere- 
ly from nature, avo^ioi and voy.ov urj h%ovT?ts. Cf. 
Ps. xix. 1 — 6. Here belongs Acts, xiv. 16, seq., 
coll. xvii. 26, seq. 

But when nature is spoken of as a source of 
the knowledge of God, external nature alone is 
not meant, as is often supposed ; but also our 
internal, moral nature, our moral consciousness. 
Every man capable of reflection finds (1) one 
source of the knowledge of God in surrounding 
nature, which, when he reflects upon it, invites 
and conducts him to a knowledge of its author, 
Ps. xix. 1 — 6 ; Rom. i. 20 ; Acts, xiv. 17; coll. 
xvii. 24, seq. He finds (2) another source of 
the knowledge of God in himself, in his own con- 
science, which distinctly acquaints him with a 
supreme and invisible judge of his thoughts and 
actions, Rom. ii. 12 — 16; Acts, xvii. 27 — 31. 

The following remarks may serve to illustrate 
this division: — 

1. We have before proved that the strong 
belief and assurance of the will of God, the 
supreme lawgiver, and of a retribution to be 
expected from him as governor and judge, are 
the means of our moral perfection. Vide s. 2, 
No. 5. We might hence conclude that God 
would give certainty to both of these particu- 
lars by a direct revelation. The results to which 
natural religion leads the few who have oppor- 
tunity and ability to understand it in its best 
state, are indeed important, in themselves con- 
sidered. Yet even the natural knowledge of 
God of this purer kind, leaves men in perplexing 
doubt on many very important points, as soon 
as they begin rightly to feel their wants. It 
cannot, therefore, afford them all that assistance 
which they need for their moral improvement 
and perfection. What Pliny said (Hist. Nat. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



29 



XXX. 1) of his own and earlier times still holds 
true — ad religionem maxime etiamnurn caligat 
humanum genus. Gesneri Chr. Plin. 757. 5, 
cf. 760, not. We should therefore naturally 
expect that God would supply these defects in 
natural religion by means of direct revelation. 

We must not, however, found our belief in a 
direct revelation upon an a priori demonstration. 
The simple question is, Has a revelation actually 
been made? This is a question of fact, the an- 
swer to which must, of course, be sought from 
history. That a revelation has not been made, 
or is not possible, can by no means be proved a 
priori. If the fact can be historically proved, 
all reasoning to the contrary amounts to nothing. 
Now, Christians believe that the holy scriptures 
of the Old and New Testament are the records 
of the true divine revelation. In the article on 
the holy scriptures we shall inquire whether this 
opinion is historically true. In the remarks 
which here follow we shall discuss some sub- 
jects by way of introduction to this inquiry. Cf. 
Jani, Versuch einer Beantwortung der Frage : 
Ob eine allgemeine reine Vernunftreligion in 
dieser Welt moglich, und von der Umschaffung 
oder AbschafFung der christlichen Religion zu 
erwarten sey 1 ? Berlin, 1804, 8vo. 

2. All history shows that men have deeply 
felt the necessity of a direct revelation. Those 
institutors of religion who have pretended that 
their whole system was revealed from heaven 
and positively prescribed, have always been the 
best received, and have succeeded best in their 
object. Some pretended, deceitfully, that they 
were the confidants of God; others doubtless 
believed themselves to be such, and supposed 
that God spake and taught by their instrumen- 
tality. It does not concern our present purpose 
to determine whether they were in the right or 
wrong, but only how it happened that their 
claims were so readily and willingly admitted 
by their hearers. It was because they answered 
the wishes and expectations, and satisfied the 
wants, of the multitude. 

Besides, nothing but positive injunction and 
prohibition produces a deep and lasting impres- 
sion on the great mass of mankind. The voice 
of natural law alone is altogether too feeble to 
control the most numerous class of society. Na- 
tural law does not sufficiently compel the atten- 
tion of men when left to themselves. And even 
if they should reflect upon it, they would find it 
destitute, in many cases, of that evidence and 
certainty which quiets the mind. They will find, 
therefore, positive commands, which give them 
this certainty after which they long, in the 
highest degree welcome. The conviction of 
having the authority and direct command of God 
for any course of conduct has more effect than 
the strongest arguments on the duty and end of 
man which the greatest sage could offer. For but 



few are capable of understanding the grounds 
of moral reasoning ; and they will often at least 
suspect that the truth may be different from 
their system, and perhaps will discover solid 
objections to their own views. But one who is 
firmly convinced that God has directly com- 
manded a certain course of conduct, will obey 
the requisition, although he may not understand 
the reason and internal necessity of it; he will 
comply with the requisition because it comes 
from God, and therefore must be right and good. 
Experience, too, teaches that a merely natural 
religion is not suited to be the religion of the 
people at large. It has far too little evidence and 
power, and soon becomes corrupt, even among 
civilized nations. Let a merely natural religion, 
independent of authority, once become the reli 
gion of the great mass of mankind, and social 
order and morality are at an end. 

Since the necessity of a direct revelation is 
felt so universally, the bestowmentof it by God, 
in condescension to our wants, cannot appear to 
the unprejudiced inquirer either inconsistent or 
incredible. We shall hereafter inquire whether 
there is one, among all the pretended revelations, 
which is really of divine origin. This is a 
question of fact. In the mean time, so much 
we may boldly assert, that the scriptures of the 
Old and New Testament have a decided prefer- 
ence to the sacred books of all other nations and 
religions. The best among these is the Koran, 
to which our scriptures are certainly superior. 
We may therefore establish this as an axiom : 
if a divine revelation has ever been committed to 
writing, it is contained in our holy scriptures. 

3. All will admit that God has, as a matter 
of fact, made use of the doctrines contained in 
the holy scriptures, and of the holy scriptures 
themselves, in the benevolent work in which he 
is engaged of extending the knowledge of truth, 
and of diffusing over the earth just ideas respect- 
ing his character and our destination. Many of 
the truths contained in these books are, indeed, 
perfectly discoverable and demonstrable from 
nature. But these same truths were discovered 
sooner, and were diffused more rapidly, than 
they would otherwise have been, by means of 
these books, possessing, as they do, the autho- 
rity of a divine revelation. This is proved by 
the example of nations unacquainted with these 
books and the doctrines contained in them. 
How ignorant and unenlightened on religious 
subjects were the Egyptians, Greeks, and Ro- 
mans, in the midst of all their intellectual cul- 
tivation ! The peculiar privilege of the Israel- 
ites — that which made them, in an eminent 
sense, the people of God — is represented by 
Moses and the prophets to be this : that God had 
taught them his word, his statutes, and judg- 
ments, as he had not taught any other people at 
that time, Deut. iv. 7, 8; Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. 
c2 



so 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



So the New Testament everywhere ; as Rom. 
iii. 2; coll. ix. 4; and i. 19, 32; which shows 
how the light of nature given to the heathen 
had been misimproved by them. 

The studious and learned among the Greeks 
and Romans retained almost the sole possession 
of all that was valuable in the schools and in 
the writings of the enlightened philosophers. 
Resting, as their doctrines did, upon long, arti- 
ficial, speculative, and abstruse reasonings, they 
accomplished very little for the religious and 
moral improvement of the most numerous class 
■ of society ; though this class stood most in need 
of instruction. Add to this the observation, that 
it is easier to find proofs for a truth when once 
discovered than to discover the truth itself in 
the first instance. The nations of Europe and 
other parts of the world were destitute of just 
ideas of religion before they embraced Christi- 
anity; but no sooner had they learned the truths 
of religion from Christianity than they began to 
prove and establish them by reason, which they 
could now do in a more convincing manner than 
any of their predecessors could have done with- 
out the light of revelation. Hume said, very 
justly, that the true philosophy respecting God 
was only eighteen hundred years old. Respect- 
ing the partial diffusion of divine revelation, 
vide s. 121. Cf. Moras, s. 8, seq. p. 4—6. 
Vide Reimarus, Abhandlung von den vornehm- 
sten Wahrheitender naturlichen Religion ; Zieg- 
ler, Theol. Abhand. Num. I., iiber Naturalis- 
mus und positive Religion, Gott. 1791, 8vo; 
and Staudlin, Ideenzueiner Kritik des Systems 
der christlichen Religion, Gott. 1791, 8vo. 

4. But although natural religion must appear, 
from what has been said, to be defective and 
imperfect, it should not be despised or under- 
valued. Notwithstanding all its imperfections, 
it is, in itself considered, a true religion. As 
Paul teaches us, Rom. i. 20, we acquire even 
from nature a knowledge of the invisible things 
of God. In ver. 19 of the same chapter, he 
says, God has revealed himself even in nature — 
i. e., in the wise constitution which he, as Cre- 
ator, has given to our minds and to the external 
world. Vide supra, No. 1. Through this wise 
constitution, according to the express testimony 
of scripture, God addresses himself to all men, 
from without and from within. He is not far 
from any one of them, and leaves himself with- 
out a witnessin none, Acts,xvii. 27; coll. xiv.17. 
Genuine and pure natural religion can there- 
fore never contradict revealed religion. Such a 
contradiction would prove clearly that the reli- 
gion pretending to be revealed was not so in 
reality. God cannot contradict himself, nor 
exhibit himself in one light in nature, and in an 
entirely different light in revelation. The know- 
ledge of God acquired from nature is recom- 
mended and honourably mentioned in the Bible, j 



Vide Psalm xix., where ver. 1 — 6 treat of the 
knowledge of God derived from nature; ver. 
7 — 11, of that derived from revelation. Cf. Acts, 
xiv. 17; Rom. i. 19, seq.; coll. ii. 12, seq. 

5. It pleased God, as the Bible represents, to 
give men, from time to time, such direct instruc- 
tion as they needed. He taught them in this 
way many things which they might never have 
discovered of themselves, and which they would 
not, at best, have discovered for a long time ; and 
many things in which, perhaps, they had already 
erred. By this immediate revelation he con- 
firmed, illustrated, and perfected that revelation 
of himself, as the invisible creator, preserver, 
and judge, which he had already made in the 
external world, and in the conscience of man. 
By this immediate revelation, he thus causes 
the revelation of himself in nature, which is 
commonly too little regarded, and often wholly 
neglected, (Rom. i. 21; Acts, xiv. 16,) to be- 
come intelligible, impressive, useful, and wel- 
come to man. Ps. xix. 7 — 14. 

Instruction given by God to men on subjects 
of which they are ignorant and incapable of dis- 
covering the truth by reasoning, is called positive 
(arbitraria) instruction; by which is meant sim- 
ply, that we cannot show the necessity of the 
truth revealed by the principles of our own rea- 
son, and not that God proceeds capriciously and 
unreasonably in this case, which is not suppos- 
able. Moras, p. 7, s. 1. When God thus im- 
parts to men the knowledge of those religious 
truths of which they are and must remain igno- 
rant if left to their own reason, he is said in the 
scriptures to reveal the mystery of his will, the 
deep things of the Deity. Morus, p. 8, s. 3. 

But revelation (tyavspoais, drtoxaTo^s) i*s used, 
even in the Bible, in a wider, and in a more 
limited sense. Moras, p. 9, s. 4. (1) In the 
wider sense it is the annunciation of such truths 
as were, indeed, unknown to men, but at the 
same time within the reach of their minds. 
Thus fyavspovv is used in respect to the know- 
ledge of God derived from nature, (Rom. i. 19,) 
and a7ioxa%v7t't£iv, Phil. iii. 15. (2) In the nar- 
rower sense, it is instruction respecting things 
which are not only unknown, but undiscover- 
able by the human mind. (3) In the narrow 
est sense, it is divine instruction on the truths 
of religion concerning the salvation of men, 
which neither have been, nor can be, taught by 
natural religion, and which cannot be derived 
from reasoning on the nature of things. 

Revealed religion, then, is not opposed, but 
added, to natural religion. It repeats, confirms, 
and illustrates many of the precepts of natural 
religion, and at the same time brings to light 
much that was before unknown. 

All this admits of an easy application to the 
Christian religion. Although the doctrines of 
the Christian religion must not be contradictory 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



31 



to reason, they need not be precisely the same 
as the doctrines of natural religion, as many at 
the present day contend. Although the Chris- 
tian religion is perfectly reasonable, it is still a 
positive religion, because it rests on positive in- 
struction. That it is a revealed religion cannot 
be doubted, as long as the yet uninvalidated 
miracles of Jesus, and other proofs, are sure 
evidence of his immediate divine mission. To 
exhibit the great and peculiar doctrines of Chris- 
tianity as constituting a system of revealed truth, 
is the object of the present work. 

Note. — It is false to conclude, that because 
positive religion must be consistent with reason, 
it can contain only such truths as are deducible 
from reason. Positive religion must indeed em- 
brace such doctrines, and such only, as we are 
capable of understanding, and as correspond 
with the laws of our minds. But from this it 
does not follow that it can embrace only such 
truths as unaided reason clearly teaches. The 
works and the will of God contain mysteries 
which men are incompetent, of themselves, to 
explore. Vide Ernesti, Opuscula, Vindicise 
arbitrii divini in constituenda religione. 

The positive part of religion promotes the 
moral part of it, as much as religion in general 
promotes morality. 

The positive part of religion is that which 
contains the instructions which God has given 
us respecting those subjects in religion which 
are not demonstrable, or which cannot be rea- 
soned out and made evident by argument. Posi- 
tive doctrines require belief and assent ; but they 
do not require an acknowledgment or proof of 
their essential truth from principles of reason. 
The doctrines that there is a God, and that he 
loves men, and the other doctrines of natural 
religion, are not positive ; but the doctrine that 
God has revealed himself to us through Jesus 
Christ, in and through whom he will bless us, 
is positive; for it cannot be proved from the 
common principles of reason. 

What is positive (positivum, $s?ixov) is that 
quod ponitur, sive doceiur sic esse ,• non quod de- 
monstrator geometrice. The following is the 
origin of this term : — The Greeks say, vouovs 
nOevcu — i. e., precscribcre, prxcipere ; for a law 
is laid down and imposed, and not demonstrated. 
This phraseology was transferred to doctrines 
(dogmata) which were prescribed or established 
without being improved. 

6. Any one who would attain to a settled 
assurance of the divine origin of the Christian 
religiru must begin his examination with the 
moral system of Jesus. He will find, on an 
unprejudiced inquiry, that this system is more 
exalted and reasonable, and more decidedly use- 
ful, than any other system of morals. But when 
be comes to put it into practice, he will soon 
find that he is no more able to obey its require- 



ments, although he acknowledges their excel- 
lence, than he is to obey the requirements of a 
merely philosophical system of morals. Vide s. 2, 
No. 4. In short, he will experience the same 
difficulties which Paul did ; and find the account, 
Romans, vii. 7 — 25, copied as it were from his 
own soul. 

How, then, can we, who are so weak, attain 
the strength which is requisite for the practice 
of virtue 1 Jesus and the writers of the New 
Testament everywhere answer, By believing on 
the person and whole doctrine of Jesus Christ; and 
in no other way. But those only really believe 
on him who are convinced that he is the very 
person which the Bible represents him, and 
which he himself everywhere claims to be. 
Now the Bible represents him as a direct 
messenger from God to men; as the greatest 
among all who have been sent by heaven to 
earth; as the Saviour, — the Christ. If we are 
convinced of this, we shall (a) .believe that 
Christ and his doctrines are the means appointed 
by God for the moral improvement and happi- 
ness of men ; and shall (b) make use of these 
means for the purpose for which they were given, 
and in the manner prescribed by Christ. Doing 
this, we shall not want strength to practise the 
moral system of Jesus. 

We see here what an intimate and necessary 
connection there is between Christian morals 
and Christian doctrines, or theology, and what 
a mistake it is to separate them. Christian 
morals are supported by Christian doctrines. 
Christian theology teaches us where we can ob- 
tain the strength which we need in order to obey 
the moral precepts of Christianity. Whoever, 
then, preaches the morals without the doctrines 
of Christianity, preaches not the gospel of Christ, 
and preaches Christ in vain. When any are 
convinced that Christ is a messenger sent from 
God, and their moral lawgiver and judge, but 
are at the same time conscious that they are 
unable to obey his moral requirements, their 
duty obviously is to follow the directions which 
he has given them, and to proceed in the man- 
ner which he has prescribed, in order to attain 
to^a full certainty that he and his doctrine are 
the means appointed by God for the real moral 
perfection and consequent salvation of men. 
Vide John, vii. 17; xiv. 6. Now these direc- 
tions are fully exhibited in Christian theology. 

Note. — The division of religion into natural 
and revealed is entirely rejected by Socinus, 
Ferguson, Gruner, and some other theologians. 
Vide Gruner, Theol. Dogm. p. 9, and Diss, 
censura divisionis religionis et theologian in na- 
turalem et revelatam, Hal. 1770. These main- 
tain that we owe all our knowledge of God, 
originally, to divine revelation, such as our first 
parents received in paradise, and thence trans- 
mitted to their descendants. They deny that 



32 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



we have any knowledge of God, which, as to 
its origin, is natural. 

The scriptures do indeed teach that God re- 
vealed himself to men even in the earliest ages 
of the world ; and much of this original revela- 
tion has doubtless been transmitted from age to 
age until the present time. But still this di- 
vision is not to be rejected. For (a) many reli- 
gious truths which have been revealed are dis- 
coverable, and have actually been discovered, 
by reason and the light of nature. In this di- 
vision, then, we have respect, not to the actual 
source of our knowledge of these truths, but to 
the ground on which we rest our knowledge of 
them, (b) The elements only of many revealed 
truths were communicated to our first parents. 
Men were left to examine, in the diligent use 
of their powers, the grounds of the revelation 
given them ; to build higher upon the founda- 
tion already laid ; and to deduce the proper 
consequences from what had been already 
taught. They obtained this additional know- 
ledge by the study and contemplation of na- 
ture ; and why may not this religious science, 
thus derived from nature, be called natural 
religion ? 

SECTION IV. 

IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD INNATE 1 

The natural knowledge of God has been dir 
vided, especially by the ancients, into innate 
(insita, congenita, Uptyvtos) and acquired, (ac- 
quisita, frtJxT^oj.) The acquired knowledge 
of God is that which we obtain by the use of 
reason and by the observation and study of the 
world. By the innate knowledge of God the 
ancients understood an idea of God actually 
innate in all men, brought directly into the 
world with them, and obtained neither by in- 
struction nor reflection. Pythagoras, the Pla- 
tonists, and many ancient philosophers, believed 
in these innate ideas, (anteceptse animo notiones.) 
Vide Cic. De Nat. Deor. I. 11, seq. ; Seneca, 
Epist. 117. This opinion was connected by 
Plato with his theory respecting the existence 
of the human soul before its union with the 
body. He taught that all our ideas previously 
existed in our minds; and that learning was 
only the recollection of what belonged to our 
former condition. Des Cartes also advocated 
this innate knowledge; and many theologians 
considered it as a remnant of the Divine image 
in man. 

This opinion doubtless arose from the known 
fact, that the belief of the Divine existence al- 
ways precedes the knowledge of any theoretic 
proof of it. The conclusion then was, that be- 
cause men do not derive their belief in God 
from speculation, the idea of God must be innate. 

But the mind possesses no such innate ideas. 
It obtains all its ideas by the use of its natural 



faculties. Vide Locke, Essay on Human Un- 
derstanding. The soul may be comp'ared in 
this respect, according to Aristotle, to an un- 
written leaf, (tabula rasa,) upon which any 
thing of which it is naturally susceptible may 
be written. The mistake on this subject origi- 
nates in this way : The belief in the existence, 
nature, and attributes of God does not depend 
upon speculation, of which but few men are 
capable ; the idea of God is not admitted to be 
true, because it is proved by theoretic, specula- 
tive reason, but rather because it perfectly agrees 
with the principles of moral reason, with moral 
consciousness, or conscience ; and because it is 
demanded by these principles, as has been 
abundantly shown by Kant, Kritik der reinen 
Vernunft, and elsewhere. This is the reason 
that the belief in the Divine existence always 
precedes the knowledge of any theoretic proof 
of it. Speculative reasoning must be awakened 
and improved before we shall begin to inquire 
for the theoretic proof of the truths already 
made known to us by practical reason, or con- 
science. 

Experience, too, stands in the way of the be- 
lief that the idea of God is innate. The most 
uncultivated men, those in whom practical rea- 
son has not yet been sufficiently exercised and 
developed, have no idea of God and religion, 
and of course no words standing for these ideas. 
Vide Robinson, History of America; Steller, 
Beschreibung von Kamtschatka, s. 2G8 ; Olden- 
dorp, Geschichte der Mission auf den Carai- 
bischen Inseln, s. 64. The same has been 
found true of individuals who have grown up 
in the woods, entirely separated from the society 
of their fellow-men. 

If the innate knowledge of God means what 
Musaeus, Buddeus, and others, understood by 
it, a natural capacity of the mind, (potentia pro- 
pinqua,) by means of which the knowledge of 
God is easily attained, then, indeed, we possess 
such innate knowledge. This natural capacity 
consists in the practical reason, which begins to 
act before the other powers of the mind. This 
natural capacity, however, is very improperly 
called cognitio insita. 

Some have endeavoured to prove this innate 
knowledge from the writings of Paul. But 
they mistake his meaning. The doctrine of 
Paul, contained in the two passages referred to, 
entirely agrees w T ith the theory just stated. 

1. Rom. ii. 14, 15. The subject of this pas- 
sage is the moral sense or feeling which appears 
in all men, even in childhood, as soon indeed 
as the practical reason is developed. This 
feeling renders it impossible for men, whether 
extremely barbarous or highly cultivated, when 
free from prejudice and passion, to withhold 
approbation of right and admiration of virtue. 
But this moral feeling, as was remarked above, 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



stands in close connection with the idea of God, 
and leads directly to it. Paul says that even 
the heathen (^ vo/xov izovtts} have this feeling 
They, indeed, have no direct revelation (j/ouov) ; 
but they know from their own nature (tyvati.) 
that the same things are right and wrong which 
revelation declares to be so, and they act accord- 
ingly. In ver. 27 he presents the same con- 
trast, and in ver. 15 he explains his meaning. 
They show (jsvSEixvvvtai) by their judgments 
and actions that the precepts of the law (to t'pyov 
tov vo/xov, what the moral law commands to be 
done or avoided) are written upon their hearts. 

This last expression is frequently cited in 
proof of innate knowledge; but it denotes 
merely an acquaintance with a subject so fixed 
and thorough that it cannot be obscured or ob- 
literated from the mind. So, Heb. viii. 10, God 
wrote his commands in the hearts of the Israel- 
ites; and Cic. Acad. IV. I, Res in anirao suo 
inseulptas habere. Vide Wetstein, ad h. 1. 
"Their conscience condemns them when they 
do wrong, and acquits them when they do right. 
They cannot, therefore, be destitute of the cer- 
tain knowledge of right and wrong." 

2. Rom. i. 19, 20. The doctrine advanced is, 
that the heathen are as liable to punishment, 
when they transgress the law of nature, as the 
Jews when they transgress the precepts of re- 
velation : for the knowledge of God (to yvuorbv 
tov ©sot) for yvuxjtj ©sov) is attainable even by 
the heathen. It is evident even to them, ($a- 
pspov iativ sv avtols for avrotj;) for God has re- 
vealed it to them — i. e., has given them the 
means of attaining it in the natural world. So 
that even they (passing to the last clause in 
ver. 20) cannot excuse themselves with the plea 
of ignorance, (tl<; to sli>ai avrovs avart.o7ioyr t tovs.) 
The words to, ydp 



$sio?r;s are paren- 
thetical, and explanatory of the declaration that 
God had revealed himself to the heathen, ver. 
19. They show in what manner this revelation 
was made. The attributes of God, in them- 
selves invisible and inscrutable, (dopafa ovvtov,) 
his omnipotence and other divine perfections 
(SsLotrjs), can be discovered, since the creation 
of the world, (drco xflosios jcou^od, while the world 
stands, cf. Luke, xi. 50,) by the observation of 
the things that are made, (rtot^acrt, by reflection 
upon the works of God.) The knowledge here 
spoken of is, therefore, acquired knowledge, (cog- 
nitio acquisita.) 

The first of these passages treats, then, of the 
moral sense which the heathen, the civilized, 
and the savage, alike possess. The second treats 
of the knowledge of God acquired from the crea- 
tion; such knowledge as the enlightened hea- 
then philosophers had obtained by the study of 
the natural world ; for with these had Paul, and 
his readers at Rome, at that time, to deal, and of 
these, therefore, he here principally speaks. 



SECTION V. 

OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH ; AND THE ANALOGY 
OF FAITH. 

1 . Of the Divisions of the Doctrines. 

The particular parts which compose the sys- 
tem of theoretic religion are called doctrines of 
faith, (articuli fidei, capita fidei Christians :) 
also, loci, from the sections and rubrics into 
which they are collected ; whence the phrase 
loci theologici. The whole sum of the truths 
of theoretic or doctrinal religion, exhibited in 
their proper order and connection, constitutes a 
system of doctrines, or a system of theoretic 
theology. The articles of faith are divided — 

1. Into pure and mixed, in respect to the 
ground upon which our knowledge of them rests. 
Pure, are those truths which we learn wholly 
from the holy scriptures ; mixed, are those which 
we not only learn from the scriptures, but which 
we can discover and demonstrate by reason. 
Morus, p. 10, ad finem. 

2. Into fundamental or essential, and unessential 
or less essential, in respect to their internal im- 
portance, and their connection with the whole 
system of Christian truth. Vide Morus, p. 12, 
s. 3, 4. This division has been rendered more 
accurate by the controversies which have arisen 
in relation to the different doctrines of theology. 
The fundamental doctrines are those without 
which the system taught in the Bible is un- 
founded, and with which it must stand or fall. 
Such are the doctrines enumerated by Morus, 
p. 8. They may also be defined to be those 
which cannot be denied or contested without 
subverting the ground of Christian faith and 
hope. The unessential doctrines are those which 
do not concern the vitals of religion, and which 
we are not required to believe in order to sal- 
vation. Vide s. 4. The fundamental doctrines 
are subdivided into primary and secondary. 

We subjoin the following remarks to this im- 
portant division of the doctrines into essential 
and unessential : — 

(a) This division was first distinctly stated 
in the first half of the seventeenth century, by 
Nic. Hunnius. It was afterwards adopted by 
Calovius, Musaeus, Baier, and others. 

(b) The term fundamental is taken from 
1 Cor. iii. 10, 11. Paul here compares himself 
and other Christian teachers to architects ; the 
Christian community to a building; the doc- 
trines of Christianity to the materials for build- 
ing. The elementary truths of Christianity, 
which Paul and other teachers preached at the 
establishment of churches, are here called the 
foundation, in opposition to the superstructure, 
which some other one at Corinth had built upon 
this foundation, (t7ioixo?ioutl, and ver. 6, 7.) Cf. 
Eph. ii. 20, where the same comparison is foW« 



34 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Paul calls the instruction which he had given 
in the elements of Christianity, yd'ka, 1 Cor. 
iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; also, Tioyoj tfjjlj apzys "tov 
Xpttftfou, Heb. vi. 1. Fundamental doctrines, 
then, in the sense of Paul, are those elementary 
truths which should be communicated to such 
as wish to understand and embrace the Christian 
religion. These elementary doctrines, as well 
as the higher truths suited to those who are 
more advanced, should all be related and never 
opposed to the great doctrines respecting Christ 
as the saviour of the world. 1 Cor. iii. 11. 

It is not, in reality, a difficult thing to deter- 
mine what doctrines the apostles regarded as 
essential to Christianity, since they themselves 
have so often and so distinctly informed us. 
We only need to pursue the historical method ; 
and to follow the same principles as when we 
inquire what doctrines were considered essential 
by the founder and first teachers of the Mahom- 
medan or any other positive religion. The the- 
ologians of different sects have, however, been 
always at variance on this subject. They look 
at the doctrines of religion from points of view 
entirely different from that of the early Chris- 
tian teachers, and, of course, differ widely from 
the latter in their estimate of these doctrines. 
How, for example, can a theologian who denies 
that Christ is, what he is declared to be in 
every page of the New Testament, a messenger 
sent from God, agree in opinion with the first 
Christian teachers respecting him, his doctrine, 
and the essentials of his religion! Now the 
theologian whose belief on this point does not 
accord with that of the apostles, is bound in 
honour to say so. He ought not to pervert their 
language in order to adapt it to his own system. 
Many decide on philosophical principles what 
the religion of Christ and the object of his mis- 
sion should be, and then interpret the scriptures 
according to their preconceived opinions. 

If we would determine what doctrines were 
regarded by the apostles as essential to Chris- 
tianity, and were preached by them as such to 
Jews and Gentiles, we must consult those pas- 
sages in which Christ and his disciples inten- 
tionally introduce the elementary truths in which 
all were instructed. Such passages are those 
in Acts, which describe the founding of new 
churches by the apostles, that in Matt, xxviii., 
which contains the commission given by Christ 
to his disciples; and those in which the writers 
distinctly profess to give the fundamental doc- 
trines of Christianity. Cf. 1 Cor. ; iii. 1 Thess. 
i. 8 — 10 ; Heb. vi. 1, seq. The following doc- 
trines are in this way ascertained to be funda- 
mental. 

1. The doctrine of the divine unity, in oppo- 
sition to the polytheism, and other connected 
errors of the heathen world. This one God, 
revealed as Father, Sor^ ^nd Holy Ghos* : was 



represented by the apostles as the author, pre- 
server, and governor of all things. 

2. The doctrine respecting Jesus, (a) He is 
the Messiah, the Saviour, (Sco^p) the Son of 
God, predicted by the prophets, and attested by 
miracles. In this character he possesses an 
authority to which no other prophet could pre- 
tend. This is a point upon which Christ and 
the apostles always insist, as the peculiar and 
distinctive doctrine of Christianity, 1 Cor. iii. 1 1. 
And no teacher of religion who sets aside this 
authority of Christ can be called a Christian 
teacher, however true and useful his instructions 
may be in other respects. This doctrine, that 
Jesus is the Christ, is, as Paul says, the founda- 
tion upon which all the other great truths of 
Christianity are built. Vide Storr, Ueber den 
Geist des Christenthums, in Flatt's Magazin fur 
Dogmatik und Moral, St. I. s. 103, f. Tub. 1796. 
( b) He became man, died, and rose again. He 
is now gone into the heavens, where he is ex- 
alted over all, and enjoys that divine glory which 
is his due, and whence he will come on a future 
day to be our judge. ( c) He not only gave us 
ample instruction respecting our duty, but pro- 
cured us forgiveness with God, and freedom from 
the punishment of sin through his sufferings and 
death (al^a), the remembrance of which is so- 
lemnly renewed in the Lord's supper. These 
truths respecting Christ are always represented 
as fundamental. 

3. The doctrine of the depravity and moral 
degeneracy of man is always presupposed and 
frequently stated in the strongest terms. 

4. The doctrine of a special divine instruc- 
tion and guidance, (jivsvjxa oiycov, xapls/xata 
7tvsvfxato^.) These were afforded in various 
ways, naturally and supernaturally, to Chris- 
tians of that period, and promised to those who 
should follow. 

5. The doctrines of the immortality of the 
soul, of future retribution, and of the resurrec- 
tion of the dead. The latter doctrine was 
taught in opposition to the heathen and to the 
Sadducees. 

6. The doctrine of the destination of man. 
This is holiness, and the happiness proportion- 
ately connected with it. He only who has ex- 
perienced a true change of heart, and who lives 
according to the precepts of Christ, can share 
in the rights and blessings which belong to 
Christians in this life, and the life to come. 

7. The doctrine of gratuitous forgiveness 
Men cannot merit forgiveness and salvation by 
obedience, either to the civil or ecclesiastical 
lav/ of Moses, or to the universal moral law, 
although obedience to the latter is their indis- 
pensable duty. Paul argues this point against 
the Jews, who held the opposite opinion; he 
also shows that the law of Moses is no longer 
obligatory upon Christians. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



35 



8. The doctrine of baptism. By this ordi- 
nance Christian rights are imparted and assured 
to all who are admitted into the Christian 
church. 

These are the fundamental doctrines which 
were taught by the apostles. 

Note. — The whole Mosaic dispensation, as all 
will admit, rested on the principles of theocracy. 
But it is equally clear from the New Testament, 
that the new or Christian dispensation rests 
on principles of theocracy and Christocracy. 
Christ is not merely a teacher, now deceased, 
like Socrates and Plato, and other sages of an- 
tiquity, who live indeed in remembrance, but 
who now no longer exert a personal influence 
upon men. He is now, as he was formerly, 
and will always continue to be, a true and living 
king (xvpioj) and judge, (xpvtris t^Jovtav xai 

Christianity, then, in the purely scriptural 
view of it, is no more an institute for mere in- 
struction than the ancient Mosaic dispensation. 
It does not rest its precepts upon the weight of 
the reasons by which they might be supported. 
It is a divinely constituted government, in which 
Christ is king, legislator, and judge. To his 
will, in furtherance of their improvement and 
blessedness in time and in eternity, the hearts 
of men should be united. To his authority, as 
lawgiver and king, God has given abundant tes- 
timony. His will and command are therefore 
the only ground which the Bible offers for the 
unconditional obedience to him which it requires 
of all the subjects of his rule. Christ does not 
indeed omit, as our teacher, to give us reasons 
for his precepts; but, at the same time, as our 
Lord and judge, he requires obedience to his 
simple authority. These views might be proved 
from the writings of the apostles and the dis- 
courses of Jesus. Vide Matt, v., seq. 

II. Of the Analogy of Faith and of Scripture. 

The analogy of faith is the connection which 
subsists between the doctrines of the Christian 
religion and the relation, arising from this con- 
nection, of these doctrines to one another and 
to the whole system. Intimately connected 
with this is the analogy of Scripture, which is 
the connection and agreement which subsists 
between all the truths contained in the holy 
scriptures. The analogy of scripture lies at the 
foundation of the analogy of faith, since the 
scriptures are the ground of the doctrines of 
faith. This agreement should subsist in every 
system ; the parts should conspire harmoniously 
to one end. The propositions should be con- 
nected together into a complete whole, without 
chasms; and follow, one after another, in natu- 
ral order, without contradiction. But this is 
eminently important in the Christian system. 

The phrase analogy of faith is borrowed from 



Rom. xii. 6. But there avaXoyla tr^ rtvatscos is 
the proportion or degree of theoretical and prac- 
tical faith or Christianity ; like /xitpov rftWtQj, 
ver. 3. The meaning is, Christians should de- 
vote the different degiees of knowledge and 
experience in religion which they may possess 
to the general good of the church. Those, for 
example, possessing the gift of prophec}^, should 
be content with this gift, and employ it, accord- 
ing to the best of their ability, for the good of 
others. 

But although this term, as used in this pas- 
sage, has a different sense from that attached to 
it by theological writers, the thing itself which 
they mean to designate by it is just and import- 
ant. The analogy of faith, as they use it, 
implies, 

1 . That no one doctrine of faith may contra- 
dict the other doctrines of the system ; and that 
all must conspire to promote the one great end 
— the moral improvement and perfection of men. 
The doctrine of the divine justice, for example, 
must be explained in such a way as to be con- 
sistent with the doctrine of the divine goodness, 
and as to be promotive, and not destructive, of 
the improvement of men. Vide Morus, s. 6. 

2. That the doctrines of faith should mutually 
explain and illustrate each other, and be drawn 
from one another by fair conclusion. Any doc- 
trines may belong to the system of faith which 
may be derived, by just consequence, from the 
holy scriptures, although not contained in them 
in so many words ; and all the doctrines should 
be carefully preserved in the relations which 
they bear to each other. When isolated and 
viewed by itself, alone, a doctrine is apt to ap- 
pear in a false light. This is the case with the 
doctrine of the divine attributes, and with much 
of the doctrine respecting Christ. 

3. That the particular doctrines of the system 
should be exhibited in a natural connection, in 
a proper place, and a regular order. No one 
determinate method can be prescribed ; and yet 
some fixed plan should be followed through 
the whole, and into all the particulars. The 
doctrines in which other doctrines are presup- 
posed should not hold the first place. It would 
be absurd, for example, to begin a system with 
the doctrine respecting death, the Lord's supper, 
or baptism, since these doctrines presuppose 
others, without which they cannot be understood 
and thoroughly explained. Cf. Morus, p. 14, s. 5 

SECTION VI. 

OF THE MYSTERIES OF RELIGION. 

1. The Greek ftvatr t piov is commonly rendered 
mystery. It answers to the Hebrew "in?D, and 
signifies in general anything concealed,, hidden, 
unknown. In the New Testament it generally 
signifies doctrines which are concealed from men, 



36 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



either because they were never before published, 
(in which sense every unknown doctrine is 
mysterious,) or because they surpass human 
comprehension. Some doctrines are said to be 
mysterious for both of these reasons, but more 
frequently doctrines which are simply unknown 
are called by this name. Mvatrftiov signifies, 
therefore, in its biblical use, (1) Christianity in 
its whole extent, because**! was unknown before 
its publication — e. g. [ivaivipiov rtoWtcoj, 1 Tim. 
iii. 9; (2) Particular truths of the Christian 
revelation — e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; xv. 51, and espe- 
cially in the writings of Paul ; (3) The doctrine 
that the divine grace in Christ extends, without 
distinction, to Gentiles as well as Jews, because 
this doctrine was so new to the Jews, and so 
foreign to their feelings — e. g. Eph. i. 9 ; iii. 3 ; 
Coll. v. 6, seq. &c. 

2. The word mystery is now commonly used 
in theology in a more limited sense. Here it 
signifies a doctrine revealed in the holy scrip- 
tures, the mode of which is inscrutable to the 
human understanding. A doctrine, in order to 
be a mystery in the theological sense, must be 
shown to be (a) a doctrine really contained in 
the holy scriptures ; and (6) a doctrine of such 
a nature as to transcend though not contradict 
the powers of the human understanding. Of 
this nature are the doctrines respecting Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost — -the union of two natures 
in Christ — the atonement, &c. 

To the above definitions we subjoin the fol- 
lowing observations : — 

(1) Whether such religious mysteries are 
really contained in the holy scriptures can be 
determined only by the principles of hermeneu- 
tics. The mysteries which, through ignorance 
of the original languages of the Bible, were 
supposed to be contained in many texts, disap- 
pear on a fair interpretation. They were greatly 
multiplied by the fathers of the church, since 
mysteries were in great request in their day, 
and in high esteem even among the heathen ; 
they were accordingly attributed in great abun- 
dance to the Christian system. There is ground, 
therefore, for the caution given by Morus, p. 41, 
s. 32, n. 3, not to seek to increase the number 
of mysteries. But this caution is unnecessary 
at the present day, when many theologians, in 
consequence of their philosophical objections 
against mysteries, banish them wholly from 
their theories ; and, not content with this, seem 
bent to exclude them, by a violent interpretation, 
even from the holy scriptures. 

(2) Since we are unable to decide, before- 
hand, what a divine revelation will contain, we 
should not undertake to say that it must neces- 
sarily contain mysteries. Mystery is not, in 
'tself considered, an essential mark and requisite 
%£ revehthm. But, on the other hand, we should 



not undertake to say beforehand that a revelation 
cannot contain mysteries. Whether the reve- 
lation which God has given us contains myste- 
ries or not is a question of fact ; and in such 
questions, demonstrations d priori have no place. 

(3) The great object of divine revelation is 
the promotion of the moral improvement of men. 
Those dark and unintelligible doctrines, which 
are either themselves subversive of this end, or 
are wholly disconnected with the practical truths 
which tend to promote it, do not belong, we may 
be sure, to the system of revealed religion. But 
of such a character are not the mysteries of the 
Christian religion ! They stand throughout in 
so close a connection with the most clear and 
practical truths, that removing them would ren- 
der these truths very different from what they 
are exhibited to be in the holy scriptures. The 
mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for ex- 
ample, stands in close connection with what we 
are taught respecting Christ, and respecting our 
duties and relations to God ; and to remove this 
mystery would render our duties and relations 
to God essentially different from what they are 
represented in the New Testament. This sug- 
gests the important rule : to consider the myste- 
ries of the Christian religion not as solitary and 
isolated, but as connected with the other truths re- 
vealed in the holy scriptures. 

(4) The reason of the mystery and obscurity 
which covers many of the doctrines revealed in 
the Bible is, that the great first principles upon 
which these doctrines rest lie beyond the circle 
of our vision, in the sphere of spirit, with which 
we have only a very imperfect acquaintance. 
This is the case with the mysteries of the work 
of redemption, — God and man united in one 
person, — God reconciled with man through the 
innocent death of his own Son, &c. Could we 
rise above the sphere of sense, and understand 
the great principles upon which these doctrines 
rest, we should doubtless find them clear, con- 
sistent, and connected, and lose all our suspi- 
cions concerning them. Even among the objects 
of our senses there are many things of which we 
cannot see the reason, and yet cannot doubt the 
reality. How many more, then, in the world of 
spirits, which is almost inaccessible to us in our 
present state ! 

(5) Since these objects lie so wholly beyond 
the conceptions of our minds, confined as they 
are within the horizon of sense; the human un- 
derstanding, in its present circumstances, should 
abstain from anxious inquiry after their internal 
and essential nature. On these subjects it be- 
comes us to be modest, and to remain contented 
with the information which the holy scriptures 
have given us. A proud and inquisitive spirit, 
on subjects like these, always leads to hurtful 
results. We are taught by the Bible, that we 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



37 



can never fully comprehend the objects which I 
lie beyond the circle of our bodily vision, and j 
that yet we must believe in them, notwithstand- 
ing all objections, as far as they are found by 
experience to be effectual means of promoting our 
holiness or moral improvement. We must be- 
lieve in Christ, as Redeemer and Saviour; in 
God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we j 
must make a practical use of these doctrines for 
the end and in the manner prescribed by Christ, j 
however unable we may be to understand their j 
grounds and internal connection. 

(6) Religion, as we may conclude from all j 
that has been said, is a necessary result from the j 
principles of human reason. It therefore rests j 
upon a faith, which is grounded on these prin- 
ciples of reason ; otherwise it would be super- 
stition. The great inquiry, then, on this subject, 
is, whether this faith is rational, conformed to 
the laws of our thinking nature, and such that 
we can justify it to ourselves and others. And 
this faith will be rational, if it is not contradic- 
tory to reason and morals. If it be contradic- 
tory to either of these, we can neither justify it 
to ourselves nor find grounds on which to com- 
mend it to others. This faith, then, may be ra- 
tional, whether the doctrines to be believed are 
comprehensible or not. This is a point not at all 
essential to the reasonableness of faith ; because 
the objects of this religious faith belong to the 
spiritual world, and are, therefore, from the very 
nature of the case, incomprehensible to man. 
The comprehensibleness of the doctrines of reli- 
gion cannot therefore be made the criterion by 
which their truth is to be determined, as has been 
done erroneously by many modern philosophers 
and theologians. Proceeding on the principle, 
that every thing in the doctrines of religion which 
was incomprehensible must be explained away or 
rejected, they came at last, in order to be con- 
sistent with themselves, to renounce all religion, 
natural as well as revealed ; or, at best, to leave 
only the name of it behind. The nature of God 
is, and must ever remain, wholly incomprehen- 
sible. We know not what he is in himself, nor 
the manner in which he acts. And we may say 
the same even with respect to our own souls. If 
we consider this, we shall easily see that we 
must either give up the comprehensibleness of the 
doctrines of religion as the criterion of their truth, 
or wholly renounce religion. As we have in- 
timated above, religion is a product of our moral 
nature. It is eminently a concern of the heart; 
and we believe in its truths because they influ- 
ence our hearts. If we withheld our assent to 
\he truths of religion till we could comprehend 
them, we should never believe; but, as human 
nature is constituted, we firmly believe, not be- 
cause we fully understand, but because we deep- 
ly feel. 

Cf. Moras, p. 41, -12 ; s. 32, 33. 



SECTION VII. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THE 
SCRIPTURES, REASON, AND TRADITION, AS 
SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 

I. Of the Use of the Holy Scriptures. 

The Bible is the proper source of our know- 
ledge of those truths of religion which Christians 
receive as revealed. The New Testament is the 
more immediate source of the Christian system ; 
not exclusively, however, of the Old Testament, 
to which constant reference is made, and which 
is always presupposed, in the New. 

If any teacher who lived before our own times 
left written monuments behind, these are the 
surest sources from which we can learn what his 
opinions and doctrines were. If he himself 
wrote nothing, the writings of his disciples and 
familiar friends are our best authority. Our 
knowledge will be more easy and sure, in pro- 
portion to the number and completeness of these 
written records. The writings of disciples who 
were contemporary with their teacher, and his 
personal friends, are far more important in ascer- 
taining his principles than the writings of later 
followers, who are apt to introduce opinions 
foreign to the system which they undertake to 
exhibit. Socrates wrote nothing himself; but 
Plato, Xenophon, and others of his early dis- 
ciples, wrote abundantly respecting him and his 
doctrine. The disciples of these men styled 
themselves, still, the followers of Socrates, and 
continued to expound his system, but they as- 
cribed to him many opinions which he did not 
profess. All this is applicable to the New Tes- 
tament. Jesus wrote nothing himself: but 
many of his early disciples left records respect- 
ing hirn which are collected in the New Tes- 
tament. If these records are truly the produc- 
tions of those disciples of Jesus whose names 
they bear (the proof of which will be given in 
the Article on the holy scriptures^, they furnish, 
doubtless, the most authentic information which 
we can possess respecting the doctrines which 
Jesus himsplf taught, and wished his disciples 
to teach. The writings of the apostolical fa- 
thers, the followers of the first disciples of 
Christ, are of inferior authority; and still less 
authentic are the traditions transmitted orally 
in the church. 

If it is true that Jesus is. what these writings 
affirm him to be, a teacher divinely commis- 
sioned, and the greatest among all whom God 
has sent into the world ; and if the books of the 
I New Testament were composed under that pe- 
culiar divine guidance, called inspiration, then 
we must admit that the doctrines of Christ and 
the apostles contained in them are true and 
divine. These two suppositions are the ground 
i of the doctrine of the symbols of the protestant 



33 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



church, that the holy scriptures, and especially 
the New Testament, are the only sure source of 
Christian truth, and, consequently, the only rule 
of Christian faith and practice, exclusively of 
all commandments and traditions of merely 
human origin. 

Our system of faith and morals depends, 
therefore, solely upon the authority of Christ 
and his apostles, regarded as teachers commis- 
sioned by God. If any one does not regard 
them as such, he cannot hold himself bound to 
believe their doctrines solely on their authority ; 
he must demand that his reason should be con- 
vinced by rational proofs. He may, indeed, 
hold the memory of Christ and the apostles, as 
he does of Socrates and Epictetus, in high re- 
spect, as worthy teachers; but he cannot feel 
himself obliged to believe on their word. We 
here see the cause of the real importance of the 
controversy which has existed on the question, 
Whether, in matters of faith, the Bible or reason 
is the tr ue principium cognoscendi. 

II. Of the Use of Reason. 

The frequent abuses of reason, when applied 
to matters of faith, led Luther and many of the 
older theologians to express themselves severely 
respecting the use of reason on these subjects. 
Their objections, however, were directed only 
against the arrogance and perversion of reason, 
and especially against the Aristotelian philoso- 
phy, then prevalent in the schools. Paul object- 
ed in the same way to $aoco$ux, (Col. ii. 8;) 
or yvwcrij •fyev8u>wuo$, 1 Tim. vi. 20. All these 
■writers have, in other passages, done full justice 
to reason in itself, as the noblest gift o( God. 

Reason ( Vernunft) is that power which guides 
and regulates, by its spontaneous action, the 
other faculties of our minds in the acquisition 
of knowledge ; it constitutes the peculiar cha- 
racteristic of humanity, and is that by which 
alone we are capable of religion. Reason alone 
can acknowledge and receive the truths of either 
natural or revealed religion, and give them an 
influence upon the human will. Vide s. 6, No. 6. 
It is therefore always mentioned with respect in 
the Bible; and the use of it, in the study and 
examination of religious truth, always recom- 
mended. Cf. Rom. i. 20; Psalm xix. ; Isaiah, 
xl. xli. Indeed, the use of reason is presup- 
posed in a revelation; since without the use of 
reason we should be incapable of enjoying a 
revelation. It is the object of revelation to sup- 
ply the deficiencies of the knowledge which we 
acquire in the use of unaided reason ; and this 
very revelation cautions us against the two ex- 
tremes, of relying wholly upon reason for our 
knowledge, and of neglecting the use of it alto- 
gether. 

Human reason, as the Bible teaches, is not 



the only source of the truths of religion ; which 
are not, therefore, to be deduced from nature 
alone. None but the rationalist would pretend, 
that the only sources of our religious knowledge 
were the nature of our own minds, and of the 
external world. The Bible teaches us that, in 
respect to objects of the spiritual world, which 
lie beyond the sphere of sense, and which 
could not be known except from revelation or 
history; reason is merely the instrument of our 
knowledge. But we are not at liberty to neglect 
to use reason as the instrument of our know- 
ledge of the objects of revelation. On the con- 
trary, we are sacredly bound to employ out 
reason in examining the credibility of the his- 
tory of revelation, and the correctness of the 
facts gathered by experience, and in discovering 
and estimating the suitableness and sacredness 
of the duties imposed upon us. 

Reason may properly be used, as the instru- 
ment of our knowledge of revealed truth, in the 
following particulars : — viz., 

1. In the discovery and arrangement of argu 
ments in support of these truths, and of results 
flowing from them, (a) The proof of many 
doctrines which are clearly revealed is not dis- 
tinctly stated in the Bible, but thrown upon 
reason. The proof of the divine existence, for 
example, is not drawn out in the Bible, but is 
presupposed. (b) Proofs, auxiliary to those 
given in the scriptures, may be suggested by 
reason in favour of the articuli mixti ,- the pro- 
vidence of God, &c. (c) Without the use of 
reason we cannot ascertain the truth of Chris- 
tianity, the credibility of the history of the sa- 
cred books, their divine authority, or the rules 
by which they should be interpreted, (d) We 
must employ our reason in developing such 
doctrines as are not distinctly expressed, but 
only implied, in the holy scriptures. Reason 
may be further employed. 

2. In the exhibition and statement of the truths 
of revelation. We find the truths of religion 
brought together in the Bible in a loose and dis- 
connected manner, and must therefore make a 
diligent use of our reason in collecting, arrang- 
ing, and uniting them into such a system as 
shall suit our own convenience or the advantage 
of others. We must also illustrate the truth, 
excellence, and fitness of the particular parts of 
the system of revealed religion, by analogies 
drawn from human things, by the observation 
of human nature, by historical illustrations, and 
in many other ways which call reason into 
exercise. 

3. In the defence of revealed religion, and o/ 
the particular doctrines which it embraces (usus 
rationis humans apolegeticus). How much 
reason is needed in this particular must appear 
sufficiently from the preceding remarks. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



39 



III. Of the use of Tradition. 

The words rtapddosis and traditio are used by 
the older ecclesiastical fathers, to denote any 
instruction which one gives to another, whether 
oral or written. In the New Testament also, and 
in the classical writers, rtapab'ovvcu and trader e 
signify, in general, to teach, to instruct. Tradi- 
tion in this wider sense was divided into scripta, 
and non scripta sive oralis. The latter, traditio 
oralis, was, however, frequently called traditio 
by way of eminence. This oral tradition was 
often appealed to by Ireneeus, Clemens of Alex- 
andria, Tertullian, (De Preeser. cap. 7,) and 
others of the ancient fathers, as a test by which 
to try the doctrines of contemporary teachers, 
and by which to confute the errors of the here- 
tics. They describe it as being instruction re- 
ceived from the mouth of the apostles by the first 
Christian churches, transmitted from the apos- 
tolical age, and preserved in purity until their 
own times. Tertullian, in the passage above 
referred to, says, that an appeal to tradition is 
the most direct way of confuting heretics, who 
will often evade the force of an appeal to texts 
of scripture by misinterpreting them. This 
tradition is called by Origen xr^vyuo. ixx"kr r 
Gtaatixov, and by the Latin Fathers regula fidei 
(i. e. doctrinae Christiana?) sive veritatis. The 
latter title was given by them, more specifically, 
to the ancient symbols, which contained the in- 
struction received from the apostles, and trans- 
mitted and preserved in the church. 

Oral tradition is still regarded by the Romish 
church as a principium cognoscendi in theology. 

" Sacrosancta oecumenica synodus hoc 

sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut, sublatis 
erroribus, puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia con- 
servetur, .... perspiciensque hanc veritatem 
et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine 
scripto traditionibus, quse ex ipsius Christi ore ab 
apostolis accepts, ab ipsius apostolis, spiritu sancto 
dictante, quasi per manus traditas, ad nos usque 
pervenerunt .- orthodoxorum patrum exempla 
secuta, onines libros tam veteris quam novi tes- 
tamenti, cum unus Deus sit auctor, nee non 
tradiiiones ipsas, turn adfidem turn ad mores per- 
tinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Ckristo vel a 
spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione in 
ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu 

ac reverentia, suscipit ac veneratur Si 

quisautem traditiones praedictas sciens 

etprudens contemserit, anathema sit." Concil. 
Trident. Sess. IV. Deer. 1. 

Note. — The ancient Latin writers use the word 
traditio in the sense of delivery or surrender — 
e. g. of a person or thing into the hands of 
another. What we mean by tradition, in the 
ecclesiastical sense, Livy or Sallust would ex- 
press by the phrase res, doctrina, or hist or ia per 
manus tradita, — voce, if the tradition were oral, 
scripto or Uteris, if it were written. 



Observations on the merits of the question 
respecting doctrinal tradition (traditio oralis 
dogmatica). In coming to a decision on this 
subject, every thing depends upon making the 
proper distinctions with regard to time. 

1. In the first period of Christianity, the au- 
thority of the apostles was so great that all their 
doctrines and ordinances were strictly and 
punctually observed by the churches which they 
had planted. And the doctrine and discipline 
which prevailed in these apostolical churches 
were, at that time, justly considered by others 
to be purely such as the apostles themselves had 
taught and established. This was the more 
common, as the books of the New Testament 
had not, as yet, come into general use among 
Christians. Nor was it, in that early period, 
attended with any special liability to mistake. 
In this way we can account for it, that the Chris- 
tian teachers of the second and third centuries 
appeal so frequently to oral tradition. 

2. But in later periods of the church, the cir- 
cumstances were far different. After the com- 
mencement of the third century, when the first 
teachers of the apostolical churches and their 
immediate successors had passed away, and 
another race came on, other doctrines and forms 
were gradually introduced, which differed in 
many respects from apostolical simplicity. And 
now these innovators appealed, more frequently 
than had ever been done before, to aposto- 
lical tradition, in order to give currency to their 
own opinions and regulations. Many at this 
time did not hesitate, as we find, to plead apos- 
tolical tradition for many things, at variance not 
only with other traditions, but with the very 
writings of the apostles, which they had in their 
hands. From this time forward, tradition be- 
came, naturally, more and more uncertain and 
suspicious. And especially after the commence- 
ment of the fourth century, the more judicious 
and conscientious teachers referred more to the 
Bible, and less to tradition. Augustine estab- 
lished the maxim, that tradition could not be 
relied upon, in the ever-increasing distance from 
the age of the apostles, except when it was uni- 
versal and perfectly consistent with itself. And 
long before him, Irenaeus had remarked, that no 
tradition should be received as apostolical, un- 
less founded in the holy scriptures, and confor- 
mable to them. Adv. Hrer. IV. 36. 

3. From these remarks, we can easily deter- 
mine the value of doctrinal tradition in our own 
times. We have but little credible information 
respecting the first Christian churches, of as 
early-a date as the first or second century, beside 
that which the New Testament gives us. And 
the information respecting them of a later origin 
is so intermingled with rumours and fables as 
to be quite uncertain. We cannot hope, there- 
fore, to obtain by oral tradition any information 



40 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



respecting the doctrines held in the first Chris- 
tian churches, beyond what we obtain from the 
books of the New Testament, the only genuine 
records of the early period of Christianity. Les- 
sing affirmed, indeed, that the Christian religion 
would have been handed down from age to age, 
even if the writings of the New Testament had 
never existed. And true it is, that by oral tra- 
dition, by writings of a later origin, by baptism, 
the Lord's supper, and other Christian rites, 
much of Christianity might have been preserved 
to our own times, without the aid of the sacred 
books of our religion. But it is equally true, 
that without the New Testament any certainty 
with regard to the doctrines of Christianity 
would be impossible; the sure, historical basis 
of the system would be removed, and Chris- 
tianity soon become greatly disfigured ; as may 
be learned from the example of the Romish 
church, where the use of the Bible was limited. 
Christianity did, indeed, exist for some time 
before the books of the New Testament were 
written. And during that early period, while 
the apostles and their immediate successors still 
lived and taught, these books might be dispensed 
with by Christians without serious injury. But 
not so in after times. 

The reformers, therefore, justly held, that tra- 
dition is not (certainly for us) a sure source of 
knowledge respecting the doctrines of theology ; 
and that the holy scriptures are to be received 
as the only principium cognoscendi. Cf. Walch, 
Untersuchung vom Gebrauche der heiligen 
Schrift unter den Christen in den vier ersten 
Jahrhunderten, Leipzig, 1779, 8vo; a work 
which appeared on occasion of the controversy 
with Lessing. 

Note. — On all the subjects which have been 
thus far introduced and briefly considered, the 
student will find very full, thorough, and in- 
structive discussions in Miiller, Theophil, oder 
Unterhaltungen iiber die christliche Religion 
mit Junglingen von reiferem Alter, Th. I. Zurch, 
1801, 8vo ; a work which deserves to be highly 
recommended to the student in theology. 

SECTION VIII. 

OF THE OBJECT, DIFFERENT DEGREES, PRINCIPAL 
PERIODS, AND BIBLICAL APPELLATIONS OF THE 
DIVINE REVELATIONS. 

I. Of the Object of Revelation. 

When man is in the savage state, and left en- 
tirely to himself, he follows his appetites and 
passions, and leaves his moral powers unexer- 
cised. Instead of allowing his will to be go- 
verned by the moral law, he chooses animal 
propensity (das sinnliche princip) as its de- 
termining motive. He thus constantly re- 
cedes from that holiness and happiness for 
which he was made. Now to show man the 



true way of fulfilling his destination, from which 
he is thus wandering, is the chief object of all 
direct revelations. Cf. sec. 2, 3. So even rea- 
son decides. Vide Fichte, Versuch einer Kritik 
aller Offenbarung, Konigsberg, 1793. 

To enable man to attain his destination, it was 
requisite (1) that he should be instructed by 
God respecting the means to be employed by a 
divine revelation, or in some superhuman way; 
since left to himself, he could never have disco- 
vered these means ; and (2) that his moral power 
should be so strengthened and supported as to 
enable him to control his stronger animal pro- 
pensities. These two things are absolutely and 
equally requisite. For the mere knowledge of 
the divine will does not impart to man the power 
which he needs in order to obey it, his bodily 
desires having already the preponderance over 
his moral faculties. Cf. sec. 2, 3. Now to 
these two points — to show man his destination, 
and to enable him to attain it — we may reduce 
all the objects which the scriptures ascribe to 
God in the revelations he has made to man. 

II. Of the different Degrees of Revelation. 

Although the plan of God in leading men to 
their destination was always the same, yet the 
manner in which he imparted instruction through 
direct revelation, and the whole method which 
he pursued in the education of the human race, 
were very different. We are led by reason to 
this result, which is confirmed by the history of 
revelation contained in the holy scriptures. 
The instruction given to men must, of course, 
be adapted to their wants and capacities, which 
differ at different times. Hence Paul remarks, 
very justly, (Heb. i. 1,) that God revealed him- 
self to men in ancient times in various ways 
(rtohvtpoTtco^. Nor did this difference concern 
solely the form and costume of the divine in- 
structions; it extended even to the doctrines 
which were taught. Vide Gal. iii. 20, seq. et 
alibi. 

God treated the human race as human instruct- 
ors treat their pupils. There is a great deal of 
knowledge which is useful, and indeed indispen- 
sable to a person of mature age, which would be 
altogether useless, unintelligible, and Derhaps 
hurtful, to one in childhood. Now the wise 
teacher will withhold this knowledge from the 
child, or communicate it to him only so far as it 
will be serviceable to him, and in such a way as 
will be most intelligible, proceeding from the 
known to the unknown, and from the easy to the 
difficult. And this is the manner in which God 
proceeds in the instruction and education of men. 
He cannot, therefore, at any time have revealed 
such things as were unnecessary, or would have 
been useless, to the people to whom the revelation 
was given. He must also have so planned the 
instruction to be communicated by direct revela- 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



41 



tion as to produce a growing conviction in the 
minds of men of the necessity of a more perfect 
instruction and a more effectual assistance before 
they could hope to succeed in controlling their 
natural desires. Such a course is the only one 
adapted to the nature of the human mind, of 
which God is the author. Accordingly, God so 
regulated his instructions from the beginning as 
to make men sensible of their wants, and then 
to supply them ; for until men have been brought, 
by some elementary instruction, to be deeply 
conscious of their need of something further, 
they will never inquire with earnestness for a 
more perfect instruction. 

III. Of the Principal Periods of Revelation. 

The sacred records contain a history of tht 
divine revelations. This history will be found 
to confirm the general remarks which have just 
been made. 

1. The great doctrine which we find exhibited 
in the earliest revelations recorded in the holy 
scriptures is this : those who obey the laws which 
God has revealed shall be rewarded, those who 
disobey shall be punished. This assurance from 
God, sometimes expressed in plain language, 
sometimes represented by images, ceremonies, 
and examples, and in various other ways, was 
jalculated to strengthen and encourage men to 
obtain their mastery over their passions with 
<vhich the divine favour, guidance, and support 
were connected. 

This first period of revealed religion, the ac- 
count of which is given by Moses, is called the 
patriarchal period (oeconomia patriarchalis), and 
is divided into antediluvian and postdiluvian. 
Revealed religion was at that time extremely 
simple, suited to the wants of the infancy of the 
world, and highly practical. All the institutions 
of religion had the benevolent end of preserving 
among men the knowledge of the one living and 
true God, and of leading them to exercise to- 
wards him that love and confidence upon which 
the scriptures everywhere set so high a value. 
The more to exercise and strengthen this pious 
confidence they were made acquainted from time 
to time with their own future destiny and that of 
their descendants, and with the great divine eco- 
nomy for the welfare of the human race at some 
distant time ; as yet, however, as Paul expresses 
't, (Heb. xi. 13,) they only saw the promised 
olessings from afar {jto^^^v i86vte^). 

2. Next followed the civil and religious institute 
of Moses ,• and here again the same divine assur- 
ance was at the foundation of the whole. But in 
this infancy of the world God found it necessary 
to confine his promises for the most part to tem- 
poral good, and his threatenings to temporal evil ; 
because such promises and threatenings were 
best adapted to influence a people who were as 
yet extremely rude, and who derived their pains 

6 



I and pleasures from the objects of the present life. 
' Intimations, however, of the destiny of man be- 
yond the grave were by no means withheld from 
those who were cultivated to such a degree as to 
be able to understand them. But in general, so 
much only of these higher truths could at that 
time be made known as would be intelligible to 
the people at large. And even this small portion 
of spiritual truth needed to be imbodied.as far as 
possible, in sensible representations, before it 
could gain access to the uncultivated mind. 

In accordance with these principles, the Xew 
Testament teaches that the Mosaic institute was 
indeed («) of divine origin, (Moses being always 
regarded by Christ and the apostles as a prophet 
sent by God,) but that still this institute, in com- 
parison with the Christian, was (&) very imper- 
fect, and indeed could not well have been other- 
wise, considering the times and the men it was 
designed for, Gal. iv. 3, 9 (proiztlo.) ; Col. ii. 
8, 20, et alibi ; and therefore it was (c) only a 
temporary religion, designed by God to continue 
only for a time, and then to give place to a 
higher and more perfect scheme, 2 Cor. iii. 11, 
seq. ; Gal. iv. 1 — 5 ; Heb. viii. 6, et alibi. 

But God excited in the minds of the very 
people who enjoyed this preparatory revelation, 
a sense of their need of one more full and perfect. 
And in various ways he deepened this impres- 
sion : '1) by such instruction respecting the de- 
sign of the sacrifices and rites of the Mosaic in- 
stitute as should turn their attention from the 
mere external ceremonies of religion, and lead 
them gradually to a more pure and spiritual wor- 
ship. Vide Ps. 1. Isaiah, lviii., lx., seq. (2) By 
prophecy respecting that great economy for the 
moral perfection and welfare of the human race 
which God would at some future time establish. 
These prophecies were at first only distant and 
obscure intimations, but they became gradually 
more clear and intelligible as men became more 
convinced, by a long trial and experience, that 
such a new economy was absolutely necessary. 
And this conviction of the necessity of some new 
economy became stronger the more men learned 
by experience that the mere knowh dge of the 
divine will, connected though it might be with 
the certainty of rewards and punishments, was 
insufficient to enable them to lead a life of virtue 
and self-government. Accordingly, the prophe- 
cies respecting the Messiah, and the new econo- 
my which he would introduce, became more and 
more clear and distinct, especially from the time 
of David until shortly after the Babylonian exile. 
The prophets now plainly predicted that the 
economy under which they lived would come to 
an end, and that a new economy would com- 
mence, which would bring relief to the wants of 
men, Jer. xxxi. 31 — 36, coll. Heb. viii. 7, seq. 

Note. — A revelation of the truths of religion, 
in order to convince men that it actually pro- 
d2 



42 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ceeds from God and should be obeyed as his 
will, must be attended with such events as prove 
its author to be their lord and creator, and the 
creator, proprietor, and governor of the world. 
Accordingly, the divine revelations have always 
been attended with events in the natural world 
of such a miraculous kind, as could seem to the 
most savage and unlettered mind to proceed from 
none other than the author and governor of na- 
ture. But the Bible claims not only that its 
doctrines should be received as divine, but that 
the teachers by whom they are published should 
be acknowledged to be sent by God, as is im- 
plied in the word prophet — the title commonly 
given them. Now in order to establish this ex- 
traordinary claim, it is natural that the Old and 
New Testaments should narrate extraordinary 
events. And these narrations, when given, must 
not be explained away, but taken as they stand, 
according to the obvious intention of the narra- 
tor; for the extraordinary mission which the 
Bible claims for Moses, Christ, and other teach- 
ers, could be confirmed in no other way than by 
extraordinary events. Those, therefore, who, 
like Eck, in his Inquiry, explain away the mira- 
cles of the Bible by a violent and arbitrary in- 
terpretation, counteract their own purpose. In- 
stead of vindicating the Bible in this way from 
objection and reproach, they render it a very in- 
consistent book. 

3. After all these preparatory revelations, cal- 
culated to produce in the minds of men a sense 
of their need of more complete instruction, God 
founded a new institute, which, without in- 
fringing the liberty of man, exerted a more 
powerful influence than any which had pre- 
ceded, and imbodied, in the most perfect man- 
ner, every means of holiness and happiness. 
This was the Christian institute. Its object suf- 
ficiently appears from its nature and influence; 
its authority, like that of the ancient economy, 
was abundantly confirmed. We shall hereafter 
treat of its divine origin, its internal excellence, 
&c. In this connection we shall notice only two 
of its principal advantages, which are often men- 
tioned in the New Testament. 

(a) Its universality. By this we mean that 
the Christian religion is adapted, in its whole 
constitution, to be the religion of all men. Its 
precepts are not confined to any one nation or 
country, but are applicable to all people, in what- 
ever climate and under whatever form of go- 
vernment they may live. Accordingly, Christ 
commands (Mark, xvi. 15) that his religion 
should be preached to all men without distinc- 
tion, (rtdrsYj ty xil<$ii\) for he is the Saviour of 
all men, of Jews and Gentiles, of the world, 
(Xcvtvip -toy xoapov.) Vide John, x. 16; Rom. 
i. 16, seq. ; Ephes. ii. 11 — 18, et al. And ex- 
perience has shown, both in ancient and modern 
times, that the truths of the gospel, when exhi- 



bited in the native simplicity in which they ap- 
pear in the New Testament, produce the same 
effects in all ages and upon all classes of men. 
They have thus proved themselves *to be the 
power of God unto salvation to all those who be- 
lieve in them, Rom. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. i But Christ 
and his apostles never laboured to make converts 
in great multitudes, or to bring whole nations to 
an external profession of Christianity ; nor has a 
whole people, as a matter of fact, been ever tho- 
roughly reformed by the Christian religion. Ma- 
ny thousand individuals, however, in different 
nations, have been reformed by it, and have by 
their example exhibited to others the advantages 
of obedience to the precepts of Christ ; and so 
it will always be in Christian communities. 
The tares and the wheat will always grow to- 
gether, though in different proportions at differ- 
ent times, according to the prediction of Christ, 
Matt. xiii. 

(6) Its perpetuity, (perennitas.) Jesus and 
the apostles assure us that we can expect no 
farther revelations of religious truth after the 
full disclosures which Christ has made. Vide 
Matt. xvi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 24. The institute 
founded by Christ, unlike other religions, and 
unlike the schools of philosophy, which soon 
pass away, will continue to the end of the world. 
Hence the Christian ministry is called to pivov, 
in opposition to the Jewish ministry, which is 
called to xatapyovpevov, 2 Cor. iii. 11; cf. Heb. 
xii. 27. This contradicts the opinion of some 
ancient and modern writers, that a still more 
perfect religion will hereafter arise, to which 
Christianity in its turn will give place. Mon- 
tanus in the second century, and many fanatics 
in succeeding ages, adopted the notion that this 
more perfect religion would be founded in a new 
revelation; but some modern philosophers and 
theologians suppose that the religion of reason 
is the only perfect religion, and is destined to 
become universal, after gradually abolishing all 
positive religions, and the Christian among the 
rest. This is a favourite idea of Lessing, Er- 
ziehungdes Menschengeschlechts, and ofKrug, 
Briefe Uber die Perfectibiiiiat der geoffenbarten 
Religion, Jena, 1795. Vide Meyer's prize es- 
say, Beytrag zur endlichen Entscheidung der 
Frage: In wie fern habendie Lehren und Vor- 
schriften des N. T. bloss eine locale und tempo- 
relle Bestimmung, und in wie fern sind diesel- 
ben von einem aligemeinen und stets gultigen 
Ansehen 1 ? Hanover, 1S06, 8vo. 

Note. — Biblical names of revealed religion 
and of a religious institute. Some of the most 
important are the following: — viz. 

rrnn, v6fxo$. This name is frequently given, 
by way of eminence, to the Mosaic religion, in 
opposition to the Christian. Sometimes, how- 
ever, it denotes the precepts of revealed religion 
in general, as Rom. ii. 14, vopov u^ e#ew 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



43 



rvna, ha^xrj. When God made a law, or 
published his will, he was said to enter into a 
covenant or league with men. He promised, on 
his part, to bestow blessings upon men if they 
were obedient to his law ; and they promised, on 
their part, to do his will. Accordingly, hia^r^ 
signifies a law with a promise, and also the whole 
economy founded on the law and promise. It is 
applied sometimes to the ancient Jewish econo- 
my and sometimes to the new Christian econo- 
my, and sometimes to both without distinction. 
Vide Gal. iv. 24; 2 Cor. iii. 6. 

The Christian economy is called rftcwt? Xpu?- 
iov, v6uo$ 'XpLO'tov, voy,os TttWscoj, rtvsv/xa, (in 
reference to its divine origin and perfection,) and 
especially £va^y&%iov. The last term was origi- 
nally the name of the joyful promises which 
Christianity contains; but it is frequently used 
in the New Testament in a wider sense, to de- 
note the whole Christian economy, as containing 
not only promises but precepts as conditions of 
those promises. In this sense it may be applied 
to the whole of Christ's sermon on the mount, 
which is for the most part of a preceptive nature. 
It is also adapted to particular doctrines of 
Christianity. 

SECTION IX. 

OF THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF CHRISTIAN 
THEOLOGY. 

1. In the apostolical church the Christian re- 
ligion was not taught in a scientific manner. 
All Christian instruction, as we may see from 
the Acts of the apostles, and the epistles, was 
then popular, practical, and hortatory. This 
appears from the terms 7iapdx%rjrii$, rtapaxatelv, 
rtapa/ii'^ftff^at, which are used in reference to 
the teaching of Christianity, (x^puy^a.) Nei- 
ther in the times of the apostles, nor shortly 
after, did Christianity need the aid of science 
and learning; and among the first Christians 
there were no learned men, except Paul, Apollos, 
and a few others, who were versed in the Jewish 
law. 

2. In the third century, many heathen who 
were versed in science and philosophy became 
members of the Christian church. At the same 
time learned men arose among the heathen in 
opposition to Christianity, and heretics, among 
Christians themselves, in opposition to the ori- 
ginal principles and doctrines of the apostolical 
churches, from which they wished to advance to 
something more elevated and perfect. In order 
to this, they misinterpreted the writings of the 
apostles, parts of which, at this distance of time, 
had become obscure. In consequence of these 
circumstances, learning was soon needed in the 
statement and defence of Christianity. The 
learned men who had been converted from hea- 
thenism now applied the doctrines and terms of 



their philosophy to the truths of the Christian 
religion. This they did partly from the influence 
of habit, and partly from the desire of rendering 
Christianity in this way more popular. They 
had also the example of the Grecian Jews, who 
frequently at that time treated the Jewish reli- 
gion in the same way. This was done by Justin 
the Martyr ; and also by Pantfenus, Clemens, and 
Origen, the teachers of the catechetical school 
at Alexandria. They supposed that this was 
the best way to defend Christianity, not only 
against their learned heathen opponents, but also 
against the heretics. For the interpretation of 
the New Testament, also, literary knowledge 
was now becoming more requisite than formerly, 
since the language, customs, and whole mode of 
thinking, had gradually changed since it was 
written. This department of learning was cul- 
tivated with great success, in the third century, 
by Origen, who gave the tone to the scientific 
interpretation of the scriptures. 

3. From that time forward the reigning philo- 
sophy of every successive age has been con- 
nected, and indeed wholly incorporated by the 
learned with Christian theology and morals. 
The theology, of course, of each successive 
period has, with few exceptions, received the 
form and colour of the contemporary philosophy. 
The Grecian church, after the second century, 
began with the Platonic philosophy ; it next 
adopted the Aristotelian, in which it was fol- 
lowed by the western church. Through the 
influence of the schoolmen, the Aristotelian 
philosophy, after the eleventh century, became 
universal in the western church. This philo- 
sophy had the longest reign. The reformers of 
the sixteenth century did indeed banish it from 
the theology of the protestant church ; but the 
theologians of the latter part of the sixteenth, 
and of the seventeenth century, readmitted it. 
Then followed the systems of Des Cartes, Tho- 
masius, Leibnitz, Wolf, Crusius, Kant, Fichte, 
Schelling, and others, which first supplanted the 
school of Aristotle, and have since kept up a 
constant warfare among themselves. In this 
contest the theologians have ever taken a lively 
interest; and, what is worthy of remark, they 
have always been able, how r ever opposite their 
theological systems might be, to find argu- 
ments for their own support, and for the refuta- 
tion of their opponents, by a peculiar and subtle 
application of the very same principles of the 
contemporary schools of philosophy. Thus 
both Clemens of Alexandria and Porphyry drew 
arguments from the philosophy of Plato; and 
thus, in every succeeding age, the friends and 
enemies of Christianity — the advocates and op- 
ponents of particular doctrines of Christianity 
— have alike furnished themselves with weapons 
from the philosophy of Aristotle, Leibnitz, Kant, 
and others, down to our own times. 



44 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



From these facts we should learn that philo- 
sophy can never afford a permanent basis for 
theology, and should never be relied upon as a 
sure pillar of a theological system. Those who 
found their belief upon philosophy never have 
any thing firm and abiding. As soon as the 
system which they had adopted gives place to 
another, the opinions which they before regarded 
as true have no longer any evidence, and their 
faith founders like a ship which the storm has 
torn from its anchor. The belief which rested 
upon the philosophy of Wolf till the year seven- 
teen hundred and eighty was undermined when 
Kant prevailed; and the belief which rested 
upon the philosophy of Kant till the year eigh- 
teen hundred, was undermined when Fichte and 
Schelling prevailed. The same fate will, doubt- 
less, hereafter attend every belief which rests 
upon a merely philosophical basis. 

4. Particular portions of theology had been 
discussed in a scientific manner, from time to 
time, ever since the second century; so that 
abundant materials were soon furnished for the 
composition of a complete system of theology : 
they only needed to be collected, arranged, and 
brought into a perfect whole. This was first 
attempted, in the sixth century, by Isidorus of 
Sevilla, in his work, Libri tres Sententiarum. 
It was accomplished much more successfully, in 
the eighth century, by John of Damascus, in his 
ixSotfij axpifirtf ■trfi 6p^o§6£oi> 7il6t£u>i. We do not 
mention the books of Origen, rfspt ap#wv, in this 
connection, because they contain a scientific 
statement of only some particular doctrines in 
theology. After the twelfth century, many such 
systems were published by the schoolmen in the 
western church. The principal among these 
were, Theologia Christiana, by Abelard, and 
Libri quatuor Sententiarum, by Peter of Lom- 
bardy. The doctrines (sententiae) of these sys- 
tems were taken from Augustine and other 
fathers of the church, and connected and illus- 
trated in the method and phraseology of Aris- 
totle. 

5. The application of learning to religion is 
so far from being objectionable in itself consi- 
dered, that it has become absolutely indispen- 
sable to the teachers of religion. B ut they have 
been at variance on this subject from the first; 
since there were always some to whom this ne- 
cessity was not very obvious, and who perceived, 
on the other hand, that learning was often and 
greatly abused in religious instruction. 

(a) There always were learned theologians 
who treated the truths of religion as if they were 
given for no other purpose than speculation, and 
who, directly or indirectly, turned away the at- 
tention of their pupils from the great object to 
which it should have been directed — the prac- 
tical influence of the doctrines of the Bible. 
They taught their pupils to acquire knowledge, 



as Seneca says, not for life, but for the school; 
and, consequently, many even of those who were 
designed to teach the common people and the 
young in the duties of religion acquired an aver- 
sion to every thing practical. That such should 
be the result of this course must appear almost 
inevitable, if we consider how common a fault it 
is with young men of liberal education to feel a 
distaste for whatever is merely practical, and a 
strong inclination to speculation. If academical 
teachers live in mere speculation, as too many 
of them do, they will infuse this disposition into 
their hearers and readers, who will again infuse 
it into others, to the great disadvantage of the 
common people. It was common for those who 
had been educated in this way to assume an ex- 
tremely authoritative and dogmatical tone; for 
there is no other pride which can compare with 
the pedant's pride of reason. These theological 
teachers, in their devotion to the philosophy to 
which they had once pledged themselves, either 
wholly neglected the scriptures, or so inter- 
preted them as to render them consistent, if pos- 
sible, with their own preconceived philosophical 
opinions. This fault is chargeable upon the 
schoolmen of former times, and upon too many 
teachers of religion at the present day. 

(b) In opposition to such theologians, who 
composed what may be called the scholastic party, 
there always Were others, who composed what 
may be called the ascetic party. They insisted 
upon the personal application of known truths for 
the purposes of piety, rejected every thing w 7 hich 
interfered with practical religion, and regarded 
theological study as important only so far as it 
contributed to this end. But some among them 
fell into extravagant and fanatical notions, and 
pronounced an unconditional sentence against 
all learning of whatever kind. Such were some 
of the mystics, as they are called, who appeared, 
even in the western church, especially after the 
eleventh century, in opposition to the schoolmen. 
The mystics have been divided, in consequence 
of this difference of opinion among them, into 
puri and mixti. The mystici puri, as the more 
moderate and unprejudiced of the ascetic party 
were called, blamed only the abuse of philosophy 
and learning, and wished to have them regarded, 
not as an end in themselves, but as the means of 
a more important end. To this class belonged 
the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and the Bohemian 
and Moravian Brethren; and, in more modern 
times, the German and Swiss reformers of the 
sixteenth century, and in the protestant church, 
at the end of the seventeenth and commencement 
of the eighteenth century, Spener, and the first 
theologians of Halle, who were of his school. 

The state of theology during particular pe- 
riods, and especially in modern times, is exhi- 
bited in ecclesiastical history. 

6. The course of theological study to be pur- 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



45 



sued by the student, with special reference to 
the circumstances of our own times. 

(1) Since the holy scriptures are the true 
ground of our knowledge of the truths of Chris- 
tianity, so far as they are of a positive nature, 
(vide s. 7,) the study of theology must com- 
mence with the Bible. The truth of the maxim, 
theologus in scripturis nascitur, cannot be contro- 
verted. The first business of the theologian is, 
to search and discover, in the use of his exege- 
tical helps, the sense of the passages upon 
which the proof of any doctrine depends. He 
should then faithfully exhibit the doctrine itself, 
as drawn from these texts, without any addition 
or diminution. He should entirely forget, while 
thus engaged, what ancient and modern teachers 
have said respecting the doctrine in question, 
and endeavour to come to a result which shall be 
purely scriptural. 

(2) When he has done this, he may arrange 
the doctrines which lie has thus discovered in 
Stfch an order as shall suit his main design, and 
defend, confirm, and illustrate them by what- 
ever he can draw for this purpose from philo- 
sophy, history, or other departments of learning. 
Proceeding in this way, the theologian will al- 
ways be able to ascertain how much of any doc- 
trine is expressly taught in the holy scriptures, 
and how much of it is merely derived from them 
by inference, or added by men for the purposes 
of defence or illustration. 

(3) The theologian should always be careful 
to notice the practical influence of the several 
doctrines of theology, and of the particular pro- 
positions of which they are composed. He 
should also, as far as possible, suggest advice, 
in passing, respecting the proper manner of ex- 
hibiting the truths of religion before a popular 
assembly ; for those who are to be the religious 
teachers of the people need to be taught how 
they may enter into the views and understand 
the wants of hearers of a far different intellec- 
tual culture from their own. A modern theolo- 
gian has well remarked, that most of the stu- 
dents of theology know no better than to address 
a promiscuous audience on the various subjects 
of religion in the same way in which they them- 
selves, as educated men, have been addressed 
for their own conviction by their theological in- 
structor. The necessity of such advice to po- 
pular teachers of religion is apparent, from con- 
sidering that they are often wholly destitute of 
a deep internal conviction and personal experi- 
ence of the truths which they are expected to 
teach to others. It cannot be said with respect 
to them, pectus est quod disertosfacit. The want 
of this personal experience cannot be made good 
by any thing else; the teacher of religion can 
never be qualified for his office if he has not felt, 
with joy in his own heart, the truth of the doc- 
trines to which his understanding has assented. 



(4) It is now very generally admitted, that 
the circumstances of our age require that the 
history of doctrines should be connected with the 
study of theology. Many attempts have accord- 
ingly been made to produce a complete history 
of doctrines, which, however, must prove un- 
successful until the particular portions of which 
such a history is composed have been more tho- 
roughly studied. The latest works in this de- 
partment are those of Lange, Miinscher, Miinter, 
and Augusti. The historical method of treating 
the subject of theology has indeed been abused ; 
but when properly employed, it possesses great 
advantages. It is useful in the following re- 
spects : — 

(a) It presents us with different views of these 
most important subjects of knowledge, makes 
us acquainted with the opinions of others re- 
specting them, and shows us briefly the causes 
which led to these different views, and the ar- 
guments for and against them. In this way it 
serves to quicken the judgment of the teacher 
of religion, to confirm and settle his own con- 
victions, and to preserve him from illiberality in 
his estimate of others. He is often enabled by 
a simple historical view to decide upon the va- 
lidity or invalidity of the different arguments by 
which a doctrine may be supported. 

(&) In the established system of our churches, 
of which no teacher of the church should remain 
ignorant, there are many philosophical and tech- 
nical phrases, which have been introduced in 
consequence of the various errors and contro- 
versies which have existed. These phrases 
cannot be understood and properly estimated 
unless we are acquainted with the time and man- 
ner in which they originated. And this we learn 
from the history of doctrines. 

(c) There is another very important point of 
view with respect to the history of doctrines, 
which is too often overlooked. 

There is a certain universal analogy in the 
knowledge and opinions of men on the subject 
of religion; like the analogy existing, for ex- 
ample, among human languages. This analogy 
may be often used by the theologian to greater 
effect than many logical demonstrations. The 
opinions and conceptions of men respecting God 
and divine things are indeed very different; and 
so are their languages. But in the midst of all 
this variety, both of religion and language, we 
find a striking similarity in some principal 
points; and this similarity leads us at last to 
the result, that even on the subject of religion 
men proceed everywhere on certain universal 
principles, which must have their ground in the 
original constitution which God himself has 
given us. Cf. s. 2, 3. The thousand different 
modifications of these principles and modes of 
conception are owing to the different degrees of 
intellectual and moral culture, and to other ex- 



46 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ternal circumstances by which men are affected. 
And it is for this reason that the analogy of 
human opinions on the subject of religion is 
most visible and striking in the infancy of 
society. 

Knowing now these universal ideas, and 
modes of conception and expression on the sub- 
ject of religion, we may safely presume, that if 
God has actually given a direct revelation to 
men, he has adapted it to these ideas and con- 
ceptions, founded as they are in the original 
constitution of the human mind. This is de- 
manded by the nature of man ; and this is found 
to be actually the case in the divine revelations 
which we enjoy. 

These ideas and conceptions, which belong 
essentially to the nature of man, give us the 
thread, as it were, by which we may traverse 
the labyrinth of religious opinions, and ascend 
up to their very origin. They illustrate the 
doctrine of divine revelation, and render the 
wisdom of the divine plan in the different de- 
grees of revelation (vide s. 8) everywhere con- 
spicuous. 

The theologian, therefore, who would cast the 
light of history upon the doctrines of revelation, 
must acquire, from all the sources of informa- 
tion within his reach, both of ancient and mo- 
dern date, a comprehensive knowledge of the 
religious opinions and conceptions of different 
nations, especially in the infancy of their exist- 
ence, and from all these various sentiments de- 
duce some universal results. In this inquiry, 
he will find the careful study of the Old Testa- 
ment peculiarly important and instructive. For 
here he will discover the germs which were 
afterwards developed in the religions of the 
Jews, Christians, and other nations. With the 
sacred books of the Jews he should compare the 
writings of other nations, especially those which 
belong to their early history. Among all the 
writings of the people of the ancient world, none 
are so important as those of the Greeks, parti- 
cularly the poems of Homer. They contain 
those fundamental ideas which, in all their va- 
rious modifications among the later Greeks, 
disclose their common origin in the essential 
nature of man. The passages which exhibit 
these fundamental ideas should therefore be fre- 
quently cited, in order to render this analogy of 
principles obvious, in cases where important 
results are depending upon it. 

Note. — In the study of theology, the follow- 
ing works may be read with profit, and used as 
manuals. (1) Morus, Commentarius Exegetico- 
historicus, in suam Theologize Christiana? Epi- 
tomen, Tom. 2, edited by M. Hem pel, Halle, 
1797 — 93,8vo. (2) Reinhard, Vorlesungeniiber 
die Dogmatik, edited with literary additions by 
Berger, Amberg, and Sultzbach, 1801, 8vo. 
(3) Storr, Doctrine Christiana? pars theoretica 



e s. literis repetita, ed. 2, ex MS. auctoris emen- 
data, 1803. (4) Storr, Lehrbuch der christlichen 
Dogmatik, with additions by Flatt, Stuttgard, 
1803, 8vo. 

The manuals of Ammon, Schmidt, Staudlin, 
and others, may be recommended, in many re- 
spects, to the more advanced student, who can 
examine for himself. The work of Storr de- 
serves special recommendation, as a very tho- 
rough system of biblical theology. The works 
which give a merely historical view of the vari- 
ous theological opinions are less suitable for be- 
ginners. One of the best among the works of 
this kind is Beck, Commentarii historici decreto- 
rum religionis Christianae et formulae Lutheriae, 
Lips. 1801, 8vo. The work of Augusti, above 
mentioned, gives a briefer sketch. Another 
work of the same author, System der christ- 
lichen Dogmatik, nach den Grundsatzen der 
lutherischen Kirche, im Grundrisse dargestellt, 
Leipzig, 1809, 8vo, contains much that is 
valuable. 



ARTICLE I. 

OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AS THE SOURCE OP 
OUR KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION I. 

NAMES AND DIVISIONS OF THE BOOKS BELONGING 

TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

The holy scriptures are a collection of the 
productions of the prophets, evangelists, and 
apostles, containing the doctrines and the his- 
tory of revealed religion. They are the archives 
of the records of revealed religion, and of its 
history. They consist of two principal parts: 
the Old Testament, or the sacrecl national books 
of the Israelites; and the New Testament, or 
the sacred books of Christians. Ata^xj? and 
rv*T3 denote laws, religion, and religious writ- 
ings ; also the books, or the collection of the books, 
which embody all the precepts rf religion. BtjS- 
hlov Sia&qxvis is used, in the latter sense, 1 Mac. 
i. 57, and TtaWa Sto&jjsejy, 2 Cor. iii. 14. The 
sacred books of Christians are called, in distinc- 
tion, xa.ivw hio^rxr. 

The books of the New Testament have been 
differently divided. At a very early period they 
were divided into to Evayyijieov and o aytosroxos, 
of which we shall speak hereafter. They have 
also been divided into the historical part, con- 
taining the gospels and the Acts of the apostles ; 
the doctrinal part containing the epistles, and 
the prophetical part, the Apocalypse. The his- 
tory of the remarkable events of the life of Jesus 
stands first in the collection ; because the dvvine 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



47 



revelation contained in the New Testament de- 
pends upon events, and upon the divine autho- 
rity of Jesus, which was confirmed by these 
events. For the same reason, the history of the 
remarkable events of the life of Moses, and of 
his times, stands first in the Old Testament. 

The Old Testament was divided by the Jews 
into three parts : (1) rntfi, the law, containing 
the five books of Moses (rtsvtdtevzos) ; (2) UW2}, 
the prophets; subdivided into dwoj wxi&tr\,pri- 
ores, containing the books of Joshua, Judges, 
Samuel, and Kings, and owns d^oj, posteriores, 
containing the prophets, properly so called ; 
(3) D'OirO, Hagiograpka, containing Job, Psalms, 
Proverbs, and the remaining books. 

This division of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment, at least the division into vo/xog xal rtpoyrj- 
tat, occurs in the prologue of Jesus Sirach, and 
in the New Testament, Luke xvi. 16; and vo- 
ftoj npo^tai, xal ^"kuoL (libri poetici), in Luke, 
xxiv. 44, in Josephus, and very frequently in 
the Talmud. All the books of the Old Testa- 
ment are sometimes designated in the New by 
the word v6/xo$. They are also called Ispa ypdu- 
fiata, ypaijxxt aycat, and simply ypa<j>/;. They 
are sometimes called by the Jews nprw D"np'£, 
the four and twenty books. 

The holy scriptures are frequently called the 
Word of God; especially since the time of 
Hutter, who gave them this name. Tollner, 
Semler, and others, object to this phrase, as in- 
convenient and liable to mistake. It may be 
allowed, however, if it is properly explained. 
This phrase, as used in the Bible, does not de- 
note the sacred books; but (1) oracles, predic- 
tions, and other divine declarations ; and (2) the 
doctrines and precepts of religion. So Rom. 
iii. 2 ; Acts vii. 38. The Word of God may 
therefore be distinguished from the holy scrip- 
tures, of which, strictly speaking, it composes 
only a part. It cannot, therefore, in strict pro- 
priety of language, be used to signify the books 
belonging to the Bible. 

Cf. Morus, p. 16, s. 1. 

SECTION II. 

OF THE AUTHENTICITY OR GENUINENESS OF THE 
BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

The word (xi^vtixx properly denotes the cre- 
dibility (dltorttcrta, Gloss. Vet.) of a work in 
respect to its author. In investigating the au- 
thenticity of the books of the Bible, we inquire, 
therefore, whether the opinion that they are the 
productions of the authors to whom they are 
ascribed is worthy of credit. 

We shall first exhibit the evidence of the 
genuineness of the books of the New Testa- 
ment ; after which the genuineness of the books 
of the Old Testament can be more easily and 
satisfactorily proved. The proofs for the genu- 



ineness of the books of the New Testament may 
be divided into internal and external. 

I. Internal proofs of the Genuineness of the Books 
of the New Testament. 

1. Their contents. They contain nothing to 
awaken the suspicion that they were composed 
in another age, or by other authors, than are 
commonly supposed. They agree in every re- 
spect with what we know from other sources of 
the history and circumstances of the age in 
which they are supposed to be written, and ex- 
hibit no traces of a later composition; facts 
which, considering the variety of subjects in- 
troduced, are wholly inconsistent with the sup- 
position that they are spurious. 

2. Their dialect. It is clear from the dialect 
in which the books of the New Testament are 
written, that they are the productions of native 
Jews of the first century; for all the Jewish 
writers of the first century who made use of the 
Greek language employed exactly that Hebra- 
istic Greek in which the New Testament is 
written; but after the second century, this dia- 
lect was no longer employed by Christian 
writers, who then wrote in an entirely different 
manner. Now if these books are supposititious, 
they must have been forged during the second 
century, when the dialect in w r hich they are 
written was fallen into disuse among Christian 
writers. Besides, a vety extraordinary and in- 
credible skill would have been requisite to in- 
vent for each of the writers of the New Testa- 
ment such a peculiarity of style as appears in 
the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 
Peter, Paul and the rest; and still more, to 
carry through successfully a fiction like this. 

II. External proofs of the Authenticity of the Books 
of the New Testament. 
1. The testimony of Christian writers of the 
first three centuries. We necessarily derive our 
earliest evidences of the existence of these books 
from those who read and used them — from Chris- 
tian writers. Now we know that the fathers of 
the first three centuries possessed these books, 
and considered them to be the genuine produc- 
tions of those whose names they bear. The tes- 
timony of the early Christain fathers on this 
subject has been carefully collected by Euse- 
bius, Hist. Eccles. III. 25; VI. 25; and I)e- 
monstratio Evangelica. This whole subject has 
been ably and accurately investigated in modern 
times by Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel 
History. A more brief survey is taken by 
Storr, Doctrinse Christians pars theoretica e 
sacris Uteris repetita, Stuttgard, 1795, 8vo. He 
has executed the article, De sacrarum litera- 
rum auctoritate, pages 1 — 82, with great dili- 
gence, acuteness, and accuracy. Cf. the Intro- 
ductions of Michaelis, Hug, and others. 



48 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



2. The assent of the heretics of the first cen- 
turies. The Gnostics, who were the heretics 
of the first period of the church, never ques- 
tioned the credibility of the books of the New 
Testament. They even received some books 
as genuine which, from regard to their philo- 
sophical views, they could not admit to be 
inspired. From this quarter, therefore, no rea- 
sonable doubt can arise with respect to the 
authenticity of the books of the New Testa- 
ment. Vide Storr, ubi supra, p. 1 — 4. 

3. The evidence from heathen writers. Cel- 
cus, Porphyry, Lucian, Julian, and other hea- 
then writers, who attacked the doctrines con- 
tained in these books, confirm their genuine- 
ness. Vide Storr, ubi supra, p. 1 — 4. 

4. The evidence from the ancient versions. 
The books of the New Testament were trans- 
lated as early as the second century into Syriac 
and Latin, and during the third and fourth cen- 
turies into iEthiopic and Gothic. 

Note. — From the foregoing remarks we may 
conclude that since no important objection can 
be urged against the authenticity of the books 
of the New Testament as a whole, they are 
therefore genuine; and even intelligent deists 
will now universally admit that no valid his- 
torical arguments can be urged against the au- 
thenticity of most of these books. 

The genuineness of some of the books which 
belong to this collection was indeed doubted in 
ancient times by some Christians. This, how- 
ever, so far from disproving the genuineness of 
the rest, is a strong argument in its favour. It 
shews how cautiously the early Christians pro- 
ceeded in distinguishing the true from the false. 
Besides, their doubts respecting the authenticity 
of the Apocalypse, the general epistles, and some 
other books, arose very obviously from the doc- 
trines contained in them, and not from any defi- 
ciency in the historical evidence by which they 
were supported. 

The books of the New Testament were divided 
in consequence of the doubts respecting their 
authenticity, into (I) ouo'koyovixsva, the books 
whose authenticity was never doubted by the 
orthodox or catholic church, Morus, p. 28 ; (2) 
wptt%sy6[i£va, the books whose authenticity was 
doubted by some, although, according to Euse- 
bius, it was admitted by most — viz., James, 
Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the se- 
cond and third epistles of John ; (3) vo$a, the 
books which, although received by the unin- 
formed as genuine, were doubtless spurious — 
viz., the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of 
Hermas, &c. This division occurs first in Ori- 
gen, and afterwards in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 
III. 25. It has been adopted in part by some 
modern theologians, who, however, have altered 
the terms, calling the fytoXoyoi^isva, protoca- 
aonici, and the avt&zyo/xiva, deuierocanonici. 



SECTION III. 

OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE 
OLD TESTAMENT. 

The proof of the authenticity of the books of 
the Old Testament is attended, indeed, with 
some difficulty, and is destitute of that degree 
of evidence, with respect to particular parts, 
which belongs to the proof of the authenticity 
of the New Testament. The reasons of this are 
very easily understood. We are wholly igno- 
rant of the authors of many of these books, and 
of the age in which they were composed ; and 
in general, so high is their antiquity, and so 
few are the written accounts transmitted from 
that early age, that we are very deficient in sure, 
historical information concerning them, and are, 
of course, unable to decide correctly in every 
case on the question of their authenticity. How- 
ever, it can be shewn, from many combined 
reasons, that with respect to most of these books, 
either the whole of them or their most important 
parts were composed in the ages to which they 
are assigned. 

I. Internal Proofs of the Genuineness of the Books 
of the Old Testament. 

1. The language, style, costume, and the 
whole mode of representation in the Hebrew 
scriptures, are in the spirit of the times in which 
they were written. In the earlier books, the 
ideas, expressions, and in short everything 
about them, is such as it naturally would be in 
the infancy of the world. Now, if Ezra, or any 
number of Jews living at the time of the exile, 
or afterwards, had composed these books, as 
some have supposed, they could hardly have 
avoided allusions to the language, manners, or 
history of their own age, by which the decep- 
tion would have been betrayed. Consider, too, 
that notwithstanding the general agreement of 
the sacred writers of the Hebrews in language, 
style, and the mode of thought and representa- 
tion, each has some peculiarity which plainly 
distinguishes him from all the rest. Vide the 
Notes of Michaelis to his Bible ; also the Intro- 
ductions of Eichhorn and Michaelis. 

2. The accounts which the sacred writers 
give us of the history, polity, customs, and in- 
stitutions of the oldest nations of the world 
agree exactly with those which we obtain from 
other sources. The accounts which Moses gives 
us of Egypt, for example, agree with those 
which we obtain from oriental and Grecian 
writers. And it is quite incredible that impostors 
of a late age should have given a description 
like this, which is true even to the slightest 
characteristic shades. They must have com- 
mitted anachronisms and historical mistakes; 
especially considering how much the critical 
study of antiquity and of general history was 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



49 



neglected by the ancients. Jerusalem, Briefe 
uber die Mosaischen Schriften und Philosophie, 
Braunschweig, 1782, 8vo. C. Gottlob Lang", 
Versuch einer Harmonie der heiligen und Pro- 
fanachreibenten, 1775. 

II. External Proofs of the Authenticity of the Books 
of the Old Testament. 

1. l^ese books are full of allusions to each 
other. Not only are the events which are re- 
corded in the earlier writings often mentioned 
in the later books, as Psalms lxxviii.,cv., cvi. ; 
1 Samuel, xii. 8 — 12; but the earlier writers 
themselves are often afterwards cited by name 
— David, e. g., in 2 Chron. xxiii. 18; Moses, 
Josh. viii. 31 ; and Jeremiah, Dan. ix. 2. That 
the authenticity of these books cannot be proved 
from a large number of contemporary witnesses 
is nothing strange ; the case is the same with all 
the writings of the ancient world. In those early 
times little was written, and still less is pre- 
served. All the evidence which we can rea- 
sonably ask of the authenticity of such ancient 
works is, that they possess internal marks of 
truth, which are not invalidated by any external 
testimony to the contrary. There is no contem- 
porary testimony for the poems of Homer or the 
history of Herodotus ; but since they possess 
sufficient internal credibility, and there is no 
external testimony against them, their antiquity 
and genuineness are universally admitted. 

2. The written records of the Jewish nation 
were preserved from the earliest times with the 
greatest care. The law of Moses was depo- 
sited among the sacred things in the temple 
(Deut. xxxi.), and with it, from time to time, 
other public documents which the Jews wished 
to preserve with special care, or to which they 
wished to give a solemn sanction, Josh. xxiv. 
26 ; 1 Sam. x. 25. Thus a kind of sacred libra- 
ry was gradually formed in the temple, from 
which our present collection of the books of the 
Old Testament was taken. Josephus mentions, 
Antiq. V. 1, uvaxivfAtva, iv ta lspu> ypdix/xata. 

3. The Greek translation, called the Septua- 
gint or Alexandrine version, is a proof that the 
Jews, at a very early period, acknowledged the 
books of the Old Testament to be genuine. This 
translation was commenced, beginning with the 
Pentateuch, in the reign of the Egyptian king 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, and completed a consi- 
derable time, certainly a century, before the 
birth of Christ. 

4. The Jews who lived at the time of Christ, 
and in the centuries immediately preceding and 
following, were all united in the opinion that 
these bocks were authentic and credible. The 
Grecian Jews agreed with those of Palestine on 
this point. Vide the catalogue of the wise and 
distinguished men of the Jewish nation, Sirach, 
JKliv. — xlix. The testimony of Philo on this 

7 



subject is very important ; and also that of Jo« 
sephus, (Contra Apionem, I. 8,) whose opi- 
nions were always remarkably candid. The 
old Jewish rabbins, whose testimony is collect- 
ed in the Talmud, agree with the writers above 
mentioned in supporting the authenticity of the 
books of the Old Testament. 

5. The testimony of Christ and his apostles 
confirms that which has already been adduced. 
They frequently quote passages from Moses, the 
prophets, and the historical books, thus admit- 
ting their authenticity, Moms, p. 23, s. 13, and 
Storr, p. 61 — 70. Even Paul, who was so in- 
tent on the subversion of Judaism, and who 
always gave his opinion against it without any 
reserve, never expressed the most distant doubt 
respecting the authenticity of the sacred books 
of the Jews, or the credibility of the Jewish 
history. Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles 
did not indeed themselves institute critical ex- 
aminations and inquiries respecting these books ; 
nor was it necessary that they should. On sup- 
position that they were inspired teachers, their 
mere word is sufficient security for the truth of 
what they uttered ; and since the authenticity 
of the books of the Old Testament was admitted 
by them, it must also be admitted by all who 
consider them to be inspired. This considera- 
tion alone is sufficient to support the faith of the 
Christian, when attacked with specious objec- 
tions which he is unable to answer. 

Note. — Some additions have indeed been 
made in later times to the oldest writings of the 
Israelites ; but these interpolations can gene- 
rally be distinguished from the original. Nor 
have the scriptures of the Old Testament fared 
worse in this respect than the writings of Ho- 
mer, and indeed most of the written records 
composed at an early period. These additions 
inserted in the books of Moses consist of names 
of towns and countries, which were not given 
to them till after his time — the account of his 
death and burial, Deut. xxxiv., &c. Here the 
nature of the case and the alteration of style 
sufficiently indicate another hand. 

Note 2. — At this distance of time it cannot be 
determined with entire accuracy whether the 
authors to whom the several books of the Old 
Testament are ascribed, gave them the very 
form which they now have, or only furnished 
the material, which others have brought into 
the shape in which they now appear. But even 
on the latter supposition, the credibility of these 
books is not at all diminished. Rhapsodies and 
disconnected compositions are frequently col- 
lected and arranged, for the first time, by some 
compiler living a long time after the original 
author. Many of the prophetical books — for 
example, the book of Isaiah, and most of the 
historical books, and perhaps even tnose of 
Moses — were composed in this way. But al- 
E 



50 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



though Moses, for example, may not have writ- 
ten his books exactly in the manner in which 
they appear at present, he may still be said to 
have written them ; and Jesus properly speaks 
of what Moses wrote. The books which bear 
his name are undoubtedly composed from very 
ancient, credible, and authentic narratives, 
which breathe everywhere the very spirit of the 
ancient world. They are his writings, although 
they may have been arranged, and sometimes 
perhaps newly modelled, by another hand. The 
same may be said with respect to the writings 
of Homer, and many others. They were col- 
lected and modelled anew, some time after they 
were originally composed, and yet their authen- 
ticity as a whole remains unimpaired. Vide 
Wolf, Prolegg. ad Homerum. 

SECTION IV. 

OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, OR THE 
COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTA- 
MENT INTO A WHOLE. 

Introductory Remarks. 

This section and the following comprise all 
the topics which are usually introduced under 
the title of the canon of the holy scriptures. The 
word canon, which is often misunderstood, 
means anything determined according to a fixed 
measure, rule, or law ; hence, a list or catalogue 
made by a law — e. g., canon martyrum. 

But the phrase canonical books has not always 
5een used in the same sense in the Christian 
church. (1) The canonical books were origin- 
ally those which Christians commonly used, 
according to the appointment of the church, in 
their public assemblies for divine worship ; so 
that, undei this name, many books were for- 
merly included which did not belong to the 
authorized collection of the Old and New Tes- 
tament scriptures, while many books whose 
divine authority was undoubted were not re- 
garded as canonical — that is, were not read in 
the churches. (2) But after the fourth century 
the phrase libri cannnici was taken in a more 
limited sense, and became synonymous with the 
term EvSta^xot, which was common among the 
ancient Greek fathers. Libri canonici, in this 
sense, were the books belonging to the author- 
ized collection of the Old and New Testament 
scriptures, and containing, as such, the rules of 
our faith and practice. In this sense the word 
canonical was formerly used by Augustine, and 
is still used by theological writers at the pre- 
sent day. 

In contradistinction to the canonical are the 
apocryphal books. And the latter term, as well 
as the former, has been used in a wider and a 
more limited sense, (a) The apocryphal writ- 
ings were originally those books which were 



not publicly used in the Christian assemblies, 
which were laid aside, or shut up, the public 
use of which was forbidden, (j3tj3a.i'a anoxpvya, 
a\njj.) A book therefore of the Old or New 
Testament, whose divine original and authority 
were undoubted, might be apocryphal in this 
sense. But (b) after the fourth century the 
apocryphal books were understood to be those 
which did not in reality belong to the collection 
of the Old and New Testament scriptures, al- 
though frequently placed in it by the uninformed, 
and esteemed by them of equal authority with 
the inspired books. This is the sense in which 
the word apocryphal is now used by theological 
writers. 

The history of the canon of the Old-Testament 
scriptures is obscure, from the deficiency in an- 
cient records. Still there are some historical 
fragments and data from which it may be com- 
posed ; though, after all, it must remain imper- 
fect. 

I. The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament 
before the Babylonian Exile. 

Most of the books of the Old Testament were 
composed, and some of them (a considerable 
number of the Psalms, to say the least) collected 
and arranged, before the time of Ezra, or the 
Babylonian exile. The books of Moses had 
been collected and arranged in the order in 
which they now stand before the ten tribes were 
carried captive by the Assyrians. Tney were 
therefore adopted by the Samaritans. The book 
of the law was kept in the sanctuary of the tem- 
ple, in order (1) to secure it more effectually 
from injury, and (2) to give it a more solemn 
sanction. Vide s. 3, II. 2. The oracles, sacred 
songs, and various other compositions of Isaiah, 
Hosea, and other prophets and teachers of reli- 
gion, were afterwards preserved in the same 
manner, and doubtless with the same intention. 
But it does not appear that before the exile any 
complete and perfect collections were made of 
all the oracles of any one prophet, or of all the 
Psalms or Proverbs. And even supposing such 
collections to have been made, they did not agree 
throughout with the collections which we now 
possess, which were made and introduced soon 
after the exile. The original collection of the 
Psalms, for example, has been enriched by the 
addition of many, which were not composed till 
af:er the captivit} r . The other original collec- 
tions have been altered and improved in a simi- 
lar manner. 

Note. — It is usually the case, that as soon as 
a nation comes to the possession of many works 
which have different degrees of merit, ^r which 
are in danger of being corrupted or neglected, oi 
which perhaps have already experienced this 
fate, persons appear who are versed in literature 
and who interest themselves in these works 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



51 



They take pains to preserve their text, or to re- 
store itVhen it has become corrupt; they shew 
the distinction between genuine and spurious 
writings, and they make collections, or lists, 
comprising only those which are genuine, and 
among these only the more eminent and distin- 
guished. Such persons appeared anciently 
among the Israelites, and afterwards among 
Christians. And such among the Greeks were 
the grammarians of Alexandria, under the Ptole- 
mies. They distinguished between the genuine 
and spurious w r orks of Grecian literature, and 
composed catalogues (canones) of the best 
among the former. The books admitted into 
their canon were called eyxpivopsvoi (classici), 
and the books excluded, exxpivopevoi. The ex- 
cluded writings were of course less used, and 
have since mostly perished. Vide Ruhnken, 
Historia Oratorum Groecorum critica, p. xcvi. 
Quintillian, (I. 0.).I. 4, s. 3, and Spalding, ad 
h. 1. These remarks illustrate the origin of the 
collection of the holy scriptures. 

II. The Completion of the Canon of the Old Testa- 
ment after the Babylonian Exile. 

It is a current tradition among the Jews that 
the complete collection of their sacred books was 
made by Ezra. Another tradition, however, 
ascribes the establishment of the canon to Nehe- 
miah, 2 Mace. ii. 13. But neither of these tra- 
ditions is supported by sure historical evidence. 
It cannot be doubted, however, that in so im- 
portant a work as the collection and arrange- 
ment of their sacred books, the priests, and 
lawyers, and all the leading men of the nation, 
must have been unitedly engaged, as the gram- 
marians of Alexandria were, in determining the 
Greek classics. And it is very probable that 
both of the distinguished men above mentioned 
may have had a principal share in this under- 
taking. 

Our collection of the Old-Testament scrip- 
tures appears to have originated somewhat in 
the following manner : — When the Jews return- 
ed from captivity, and re-established divine 
worship, they collected the sacred books which 
they still possessed, and commenced with them 
a sacred library, as they had done before with 
the book of the law. To this collection they 
afterwards added the writings of Zachariah, Ma- 
lachi, and other distinguished prophets and 
priests, who wrote during the captivity, or 
shortly after ; and also the books of Kings, 
Chronicles, and other historical writings, which 
had been compiled from the ancient records of 
the nation. 

The collection thus made was ever after con- 
sidered complete; and the books composing it 
were called The Holy Scriptures, the Law 
xvn the Prophets, &c. It was now circulated 
by means of transcripts, and came gradually into 



common use. The canon of the Old Testament 
was closed as soon, certainly, as the reign of the 
Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, and proba- 
bly somewhat before. After this time the spirit 
of prophecy ceased, and no new writings were 
added to the approved collection. What was 
done by the Grecian grammarians under Ptole- 
my, towards securing the existence and literary 
authority of Grecian works, by the establish- 
ment of the canon of the Greek classics, was 
done by the Jews, after their return from exile, 
towards securing the existence and religious 
authority of Hebrew books, by the establish- 
ment of the canon of the Hebrew scriptures. 

The books belonging to this collection were 
the only ones translated as sacred national books 
by the first translators of the Old Testament, the 
authors of the Septuagint. But to some manu- 
scripts of this version, other books, apocryphal, 
as they are called, were found appended. From 
this circumstance some have supposed that the 
Egyptian Jews had a different canon from those 
of Palestine, and included in it the apocryphal 
books, as of equal authority with the rest. This 
was the opinion of Semler; but it cannot be 
shewn from Josephus or Philo that the Egyptian 
Jews, though they held the apocryphal books in 
high esteem, both before and after the com- 
mencement of the Christian era, ever thought 
them of equal authority with the canonical 
books. Philo, in the first century, does not 
once mention them, although Sirach wrote about 
237 years before the birth of Christ. They can- 
not, therefore, have been counted, even by the 
Egyptian Jews of the first century, among the 
books of the Old Testament. Besides, they 
were never cited by the apostles, who, however, 
always follow the Septuagint. During the se- 
cond century, Sirach was held in high esteem 
among the fathers ; and gradually he and the 
other apocryphal writers obtained great autho- 
rity in the churches. At a still later period they 
were admitted into the canon by Christian 
writers, who mistook their high reputation for 
divine authority. Tide No. III. Cf. Eichhorn, 
Einleitung in das A. T. Th. I., and also in die 
apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig 
1795; Storr, in the work above mentioned, p 
71, ff . ; especially Jahn, Einleitung in die 
gottlichen Schriften des alten Bundes, Wien, 
1802. The latter work contains a full examina- 
tion of the latest objections. 

Can it be shewn by historical evidence that 
all the books which now stand in this collection 
belonged to it originally'? Of most of these 
books this can be satisfactorily shewn; but re- 
specting some particular books it cannot be 
ascertained from historical records, either that 
they belonged to the collection originally, or at 
what time they were received as canonical ; for 
no complete list of all our canonical books can 



52 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



be gathered from the works of the oldest Jewish 
writers. 

The following observations, however, may 
enable us to come to some conclusion: — (1) 
We see from Sirach, xlv. — xlix., that most of 
these books belonged to his canon. (2) The 
citations which Philo, in the first century, makes 
from the Old Testament, shew that most of these 
books belonged also to his collection. (3) But 
Josephus has left a list of the books, of which, 
at his time, the collection was composed; but 
there is some obscurity attending the passage, 
Contra Apionem, I. 8, in which this catalogue 
is contained. We cannot be certain from this 
passage that Josephus intended to include the 
books of Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehe- 
miah, in his catalogue; though the probability 
is that he did. Vide Eichhorn, Einleitung, Th. 
I. s. 113. (4) The frequent citations which 
the evangelists and prophets made from these 
books render it certain that most of them be- 
longed to the canon at the time of Christ. The 
passage, Matt, xxiii. 35, coll. Luke, xi. 51, de- 
serves to be specially noticed. Christ here de- 
clares that the Jews should be punished for the 
murder of all the just men who had been slain 
from Abel (Gen. iv. 8) to Zachariah, 2 Chron. 
xxiv. 21, 22. From this passage we are led to 
conclude that the disputed book of Chronicles 
not only belonged to the canon of the Old Tes- 
tament at the time of Christ, but that it was 
then, as it is now, placed last in the collection. 
(5) Add to this, that these disputed books are 
contained, as belonging to the canon, in the 
Alexandrine version. 

Note. — Since the free inquiry respecting some 
of the books of the Old Testament, which Oeder 
published at Halle, 1771, many protestant theo- 
logians have employed themselves in suggest- 
ing doubts respecting the genuineness of some 
of the canonical Hebrew scriptures, and in at- 
tempting to prove them to be either spurious, 
uncertain, or adulterated. Among these theolo- 
gians, De Wette is the latest. They commenced 
the attack upon the books of Esther, Chroni- 
cles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; proceeded to Isaiah 
(xl. — lx.) and other prophets, and then to the 
books of Moses; against the genuineness of all 
of which they arrayed specious objections, and 
finally endeavoured to subvert the foundation of 
the whole canon of the Old Testament. The 
student can become acquainted with the princi- 
pal modern writers who have either assailed or 
advocated the canon of the Old Testament, and 
with the principal arguments used on both sides, 
fiom Jahn's Introduction to the Old Testament, 
and the theological work of Storr and Flatt, 
which notice all, except perhaps a few of the 
"very latest objections. 

To all these objections but few Christians are 
able to give a satisfactory answer. But if they 



allow to Christ the authority which he claimed 
for himself, and which the apostles ascribed to 
him, they can relieve their minds from doubts 
by the considerations already suggested in s. 3, 
II. 5, and by those which here follow. 

III. The Reception of this Canon by Christians. 

Since the primitive Christians received the 
books of the Old Testament from the Israelites, 
they may naturally be supposed to have admit- 
ted into their collection all the books which be- 
longed to the canon of the contemporary Jews. 
It has been always said, from the earliest times 
of the church, that Christians received the books 
of the Old Testament on the simple testimony 
of Christ and his apostles ; and whatever some 
Christians may think of the authority of this 
testimony, they must allow that it is at least 
important in ascertaining the canon of the He- 
brew scriptures. But to this testimony it has 
been objected, especially in modern times, (a) 
that it did not extend to all the books of the Old 
Testament ; for example, to the books of Esther, 
Nehemiah, &c. ; and (b) that it cannot be re- 
garded as decisive, because Christ and his apos- 
tles made it no part of their object to examine 
critically the history of the Hebrew scriptures; 
and made the Old Testament the basis of their 
own instructions only because it was regarded 
as the source of religious knowledge by the 
Jews among whom they taught. 

But it appears from No. II. that the whole 
collection existed at the time of Christ and his 
apostles, and indeed for some time previous, 
and that it was approved by them. Whoever, 
therefore, acknowledges them to be divine teach- 
ers, must receive the books of the Old Testa- 
ment on their authority. If he refuses to do 
this, he is either inconsistent in rejecting the 
authority of those whom he acknowledges to be 
divine teachers, or dishonest in acknowledging 
Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers, 
while he really does not believe them to be 
such. 

After the times of the apostles, the fathers of 
the church disagreed with respect to the books 
belonging to the canon of the Old-Testament 
scriptures. (1) The fathers of Palestine, their 
disciples, and others who were acquainted with 
the original Hebrew, or the tradition of the Jews, 
composed catalogues containing all the books 
which belong to our Bible. This was done in 
the second century, by Melito, bishop of Sardis, 
cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26; by 
Origen, cited VI. 25 of the same history ; by 
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV. ; by Gregory 
Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Epiphanius. (2) 
But some of the fathers included the apocrypha* 
writings, which are usually appended to the 
Alexandrine version, among the canonical books. 
They, at least, ascribed to these writings a great 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



53 



authority, and called them §siov although they 
were never considered as divine by the Jews, 
who lived either before or at the time of Christ, 
and were never quoted by the writers of the 
New Testament or by Philo. Vide No. II. 
These fathers believed the fable of the inspira- 
tion of the Septuagint; and finding the apocry- 
phal books appended to this version, and in 
high repute among the Egyptian Jews of the 
second century, they considered them, at length, 
as divine, and placed them on a level with the 
canonical books. The Egyptian fathers, Cle- 
mens of Alexandria and Irenreus, first adopted 
this opinion, in which, as in many other things, 
they were followed by the Latin fathers. At 
the council at Hippo, in the year 393, in can. 
36, and at the third council at Carthage, in the 
year 397, can. 47, the apocryphal books were, 
for the first time, expressly included inter scrip- 
turas canonicas. This decision was then re- 
ceived by the African fathers, and generally in 
the western church. 

But there were some of the fathers of the 
Latin church who carefully distinguished the 
apocryphal from the canonical books. Hiero- 
nymus, in his Prologus Galeatus, says respect- 
ing the Book of Wisdom, &c, non sunt in ca- 
none. In his Preef. in libros Salomonis, he says, 
" Haec duo volumina (ecclesiasticum et sapien- 
tiam) legat ecclesia ad aedificationem plebis, 
non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum 
confirmandam." Hence the books properly 
belonging to the Old Testament were called 
libri canonici, and the apocryphal books, libri 
ecclesiastici. Rufmus, Expositio Symboli Apost., 
after enumerating the canonical books of the 
Old Testament, says, » Hsec sunt quae patres 
intra canonem concluserunt, et ex quibus fidei 
nostras ossertiones constare voluerunt .• sciendum 
tarnen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non sunt 
canonici, sed eccksiastici a majoribus appellati." 
He then enumerates them, and adds, » Quae 
omnia legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non 
tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei con- 
firmandam." 

But after all, the Romish church, through ig- 
norance of the subject, placed the apocryphal 
books on a level with the canonical, and even 
appealed to them as authority on the doctrines 
}f the Bible. They were induced to do this 
the more, from the consideration that some of 
the peculiar doctrines of their church were fa- 
voured by some passages in these books ; inter- 
cession for the dead, for example, by the passage 
2 Mace. xii. 43 — 45. Accordingly the council 
at Trent, in the sixteenth century, set aside the 
distinction between the canonical and apocry- 
phal books, and closed its decretal by saying, 
"Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omni- 
bus suis part ib us, prout in ecclesia catliolica legi 
consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione 



habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susciperit, 
et traditiones praedictas, sciens et prudens con- 
temserit, anathema sit." Sess. IV. Deer. I. 
The more candid and enlightened theologians 
of the Romish church have, however, never al- 
lowed quite the same authority to the apocryphal 
as to the canonical scriptures ; and have adopt- 
ed the convenient division of the books into joro- 
tocanonici and deuterocanonici, in the latter of 
which they place the apocryphal writings. 
Cf. Moras, p. 38. 

SECTION V. 

OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, OR THE 
COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TES- 
TAMENT INTO A WHOLE. 

I. Origin of this Collection. 

It was natural that the first Christians, who 
had been in the habit of using a collection of 
the sacred books of the Jews, should feel in- 
duced to institute a similar collection of their 
own sacred books. This was the more neces- 
sary, as many spurious writings, which were 
ascribed to the apostles, were in circulation, 
and even publicly read and used in the churches. 
Even during the life of the apostles, such spu- 
rious writings were palmed upon them by impos- 
tors, 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Col. iii. 17. In consequence 
of these circumstances, Christians were induced 
very early to commence the collection of their 
sacred books into a complete whole, with par- 
ticular reference to Christian posterity, w r hich 
otherwise would have had a very groundless 
and disfigured Christianity. Vide Introduction, 
s. 7, ad finem. Into this collection only such 
writings were admitted as were considered to be 
the genuine productions of the apostles and first 
disciples of Christ; although many other books 
were still regarded as canonical, in the old ec- 
clesiastical sense of the word, and were still 
publicly read in Christian assemblies. Euse- 
bius, Hist. Eccles. III. 3, and others of the an- 
cient fathers, said expressly that many books 
were 6.vayivu>c>x6iuvoi, which were not h'Sid^rxoo 
(iyxpivofisvot,.) Thus the epistle of Barnabas, 
the Shepherd of Hermas, and the sermon of Peter, 
were used in Egypt; and even in the fifth cen- 
tury, the revelation of Peter, in Palestine. 

But with respect to the manner in which this 
collection originated, and with respect to those 
who were, chiefly instrumental in forming it, we 
can obtain only very disconnected and imperfect 
information from the history of the church dur- 
ing the first centuries. The information which 
we possess on these points is, however, more 
complete than that w T hich relates to the canon of 
the Old Testament; and indeed amounts to a 
satisfactory degree of evidence. 

In order to confirm the credibility and genu- 
ineness of the collection, it was formerly sup- 
e 2 



64 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



posed that some inspired man must have either 
made or approved it ; and because John outlived 
the other apostles, he was fixed upon as the in- 
dividual ; just as Ezra was, by the Jews, for the 
compilation of the Old-Testament scriptures. 
In this supposition there is a mixture of truth 
and error. We have no historical evidence for 
believing 1 that John either made or approved the 
zvhole collection. In order to arrive at the truth 
on this subject, we must consider the collection 
divided into its two principal parts, tvovyyi%iov 
and artotyT'o^oj. 

1. It was commonly reported in the early 
ages of the church, that John was acquainted 
with the first three gospels, that he sanctioned 
them by his authority, and completed the his- 
tory of Jesus which they contain, by his own 
gospel. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. III. 24. And 
this report appears to be true, on a moment's 
reflection. Vide Michaelis, Herder, and Storr. 
John either wholly omits to mention, or at most 
only briefly notices, for the sake of connexion, 
even such important events as the baptism and 
the ascension of Christ, and the institution of 
the Lord's supper, if they have been fully de- 
scribed by the other evangelists. On the other 
hand, he relates many things which the others 
omit. He enlarges, for example, on the inci- 
dents and discourses which preceded and followed 
the supper, the passion, the resurrection, and 
ether events, the histories of which are given 
by the other evangelists. He may therefore be 
supposed to have known and sanctioned the first 
three gospels, which, in connexion with his own, 
were of course received by the Christian church. 

2. But it cannot be shewn from historical tes- 
timony, or any other evidence, that John either 
made the collection of the other books (drtotf- 
totos) now belonging to the New Testament, or 
sanctioned it by his authority, when made. This 
supposition is, on the contrary, extremely im- 
probable. If John had sanctioned the entire col- 
lection of our New Testament scriptures, how 
could doubts have arisen respecting his second 
and third epistles, the Apocalypse, and some 
other writings, even in the midst of the Asiatic 
church, where he himself lived 1 His decision 
would have for ever settled the question as to 
the sacred canon. 

It is evident from the historical information 
which we possess, that this collection was not 
finished a* once, but was commenced a consi- 
derable time before it was made complete. It 
was divided into two parts, to svevyytuov, and 
o artoffrotoj or to artoatohixov. 

(1) As to the gospels, the genuine and the 
spurious were early distinguished from each 
other. Justin the Martyr distinctly speaks of 
the gospels as productions of the apostles. Ire- 
naeus, Contra Heeres, III. 11, cites the gospels 
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as those 



which he knew to be genuine. The same wa§ 
done by Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. 
Vide Storr, s. 12. Tatian, at the end of the se- 
cond century, and Ammonius, at the beginning 
of the third, composed harmonies of the foui 
gospels, and Origen wrote a copious commen- 
tary on Matthew and John. The gospels were, 
therefore, collected as early as the second cen- 
tury ; and in the third and fourth centuries were 
regarded as of undoubted authority throughout 
the Christian church. They were prefixed to 
the other books of the New Testament ; because 
the history of Jesus was considered, at that early 
period, as the basis of Christian .truth, and was 
taught wherever the gospel was preached, (John, 
xx. 31 ;) just as the historical books, especially 
the writings of Moses, were prefixed to the 
Old Testament, as the basis of the Mosaic 
economy. 

(2) As to the epistles, a collection of them 
was commenced at a very early period, and was 
gradually enlarged and completed. It appears, 
indeed, to be of somewhat later origin than the 
collection of the gospels; but both of them must 
have existed soon after the commencement of 
the second century; for Ignatius, Ep. ad. Phi- 
ladelph. cap. 5, speaks of the gospels, and of the 
apostolical writings. The apostolical epistles 
were first sent to the churches, for which they 
were principally written. They were then 
communicated by these churches, either in the 
original or in transcript, to other connected 
churches, (Col. iv. 1G;) and each church col- 
lected as many as it could obtain. From such 
small, imperfect beginnings, our present collec- 
tion was formed. It is probable that some cele- 
brated teacher, who possessed more epistles than 
any other man, or perhaps some distinguished 
church, first instituted this collection in the se- 
cond century ; and that it was afterwards adopted 
by others, in deference to this authority. The 
place where this collection was first made, is 
unknown. Mill supposes it was Rome; but 
without sufficient reason. 

This collecton of the epistles was designed to 
include only those which were most distin- 
guished, and whose authenticity was univer- 
sally allowed. The 6.Tioat6%ixov, therefore, ori- 
ginally contained only the thirteen epistles of 
Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John; 
since these only were considered by the oldest 
fathers as belonging to the ivBid^xoi. But 
afterwards the avt&syojxsva were gradually ad- 
mitted into the canon. And as early as the third 
century, most of the copies of the collection con- 
tained all the books which now belong to it, the 
cwt&ey opera not excepted ; as appears from the 
catalogue of Origen cited by Eusebius, Hist. 
Eccles. VI. 25 ; and from that of Eusebius him- 
self, Hist. Eccles. III. 25, where he appeals to ix- 
x%Yiaiaatixri rtapaSoctj, and excludes the Apocry- 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



55 



pha from the IvSta^coB. Vide Griesbach, Hist, 
epp. Paull. Jenae, 1777, 4to. The catalogues 
of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Gregory Nazian- 
zen agree with these, except tnat the Apoca- 
lypse is wholly omitted by the former, and is 
mentioned by the latter as doubtful. 

II. The Principles on which this Collection was 
made, and the Authority which it possesses. 

We discover these principles from the writ- 
ings of the fathers of the early ages of the church. 

1. It was a rule to admit only such books 
into the canon as could be proved to be the pro- 
ductions of the apostles themselves, or of their 
first assistants in office. Those only, therefore, 
were allowed to be ev5ta^xoc which had credible 
testimony in their favour from the earliest times. 
The gospels of Peter, Thomas, and others, were 
on this principle rejected by Origen and Euse- 
bius. 

2. The doctrines taught in a book were also 
examined before it was admitted into the canon. 
If any book disagreed with the doctrines which 
the apostles taught, or with the regulations 
which the apostles established, it was excluded 
from the canon as clearly spurious. This rule 
w r as needed even at that early period ; for many 
books written in support of error had from the 
first been ascribed to the apostles, in order to 
nrocure more influence and currency. 

3. The custom and example of otherchurches, 
hich might reasonably be supposed to have 

judged on good and solid grounds, and which 
were free from the suspicion of credulity or care- 
lessness, were in some cases referred to in de- 
termining whether a book should be admitted 
into the canon. So Hieronymus (Catal. Script. 
Eccles.), when speaking of the book of Jude, 
says that it had indeed been doubted and reject- 
ed by some, but auctoritatem jam vetustate et asu 
meruit. 

The question upon w T hat the canonical autho- 
rity of the books of the New Testament depends 
may now be easily answered. It depends prin- 
cipally upon the decision of the first Christian 
teachers and churches; as the authority of the 
Greek classics depends upon the decision of the 
grammarians of Alexandria. Their decision, 
however, was not arbitrary, but founded on sober 
examination of the authenticity of these books. 
No public and universal law was ever passed 
in the ancient church, determining that all and 
each of the books of the New Testament should 
be adopted without further examination and in- 
quiry. The learned always were, and always 
must be, free to inquire on this subject. If we 
are convinced at all, it must be by reason and 
not by authority. We should not, therefore, 
blindly credit the testimony of the ancients, whe- 
ther given by particular churches or by distin- 
guished individuals ; nor, on the contrary, should 



we blindly reject their testimony. We ought 
rather to examine the evidence upon which they 
decided, and then believe according to our own 
sincere conviction. The authenticity of some of 
the books (the dvTitayOjUEi'a) which stand in our 
present collection was disputed even in ancient 
times; and the decision respecting them was 
very different, even in the ancient orthodox 
church. 

The canonical books were indeed, as we find, 
in some cases determined by formal decrees, 
which seem to cut off and discountenance all 
further inquiry, as in the Canones Jlposiolici, 
which, however, are spurious ; also in can. 60 
of the council at Laodicea, about the year 3G0, 
in which only the Apocalypse is omitted. But 
this council was composed of only a few bi- 
shops, and its determinations were not adopted 
by the other churches ; besides, the sixtieth canon 
is probably spurious. Vide Spittler, Kritische 
Untersuchung des sechzigsten Laodic. Ca- 
nons, Bremen, 1777, 8vo. The council at Hippo, 
in the year 393, and at Carthage, in the year 
397, also established similar catalogues. But 
neither of these councils was general. Many 
other enactments were made on the subject of 
the canon in the Romish church at a later pe- 
riod ; but the council of Trent, in the sixteenth 
century, for the first time established the canon 
for the Romish church by a general and formal 
decree. 

But the protestant church has never acqui- 
esced in those decrees which preclude or pro- 
hibit further investigation. Luther considered 
it allowable to call in question the authenticity 
of the Apocalypse and the epistles of James; and 
he was followed in this opinion by many theo- 
logians of the sixteenth century. And other 
protestant theologians have doubted respecting 
other books of the 6.vz Lteyo/xsva. 

Note 1. — Even if we should allow that the 
av?i%ty6[xzv(x are spurious, and cannot be relied 
upon in proof of the Christian system, we should 
not be compelled either to relinquish or to alter 
a single doctrine. For the books whose genu- 
ineness is undisputed contain all that is neces- 
sary for a complete knowledge of Christian faith 
and duty. 

Note 2. — If we examine the reasons which led 
some of the ancients to doubt the authenticity 
of the avtL7^y6ix£va, we shall find that they were 
derived rather from the doctrines taught in these 
books than from any historical evidence against 
them. Such were Luther's objections. But 
none of the objections of this nature which are 
alleged are, in my view, sufficiently weighty to 
justify us in considering any one of these books 
as doubtful, not even the Apocalypse, as most 
at present acknowledge. In the following work, 
therefore, the doctrines of the Christian religion 
will be supported by texts taken from the differ- 



56 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



eat books of the New Testament, without any 
reference to this distinction. 

Works to be consulted : — Gerh. de Mastricht, 
Canon SS. secundum seriem seculor. N. T. 
collectus et notis illustratus, Jena?, 1725. This 
work contains the opinions of the fathers, cata- 
logues of the canon extracted from their writ- 
ing's, and the decrees of the councils. Stosch, 
De librorum V. T. canone, Frankfort an dem 
Oder, 1755, 8vo. Semler, Abhandlungen von 
freyer Untersuchung des Canons, 4 Theile, 
Halle, 1771 — 75, 8vo. Weber, Beytriige zur 
Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Canons, 
Tubingen, 1791. Corrodi, Versuch einer Be- 
leuchtung der Geschichte des jiidishen und 
christlichen Bibelcanons, 2 Bande, Halle, 1792. 
Other works are referred to in Jahn, and in the 
Elements of Storr and Flatt. 

SECTION VI. 

ON THE UNADULTERATED CORRECTNESS AND IN- 
TEGRITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT 
SCRIPTURES. 

The integrity of the holy scriptures implies 
(1) that none of the books which formerly be- 
longed to the canon are now wanting (integritas 
totalis ;) (2) that these scriptures are transmitted 
to us in such a state as still to promote the ob- 
ject for which they were originally written, (in- 
tegritas partium, or partialis.) 

I. Integritas Totalis. 

If some of the scriptures which formerly be- 
longed to the canon had perished, the loss would 
not be very essential. If those that are left give 
us all the information which we need respecting 
the Jewish and Christian economy, no other 
books are necessary. That any books, how- 
ever, have ever belonged to the canon of the 
Jewish or Christian scriptures, which do not 
now belong to it, cannot be proved. It is true, 
indeed, that the apostles and prophets wrote 
many books which have not come down to us — 
books, too, which were inspired. For if inspi- 
ration is conceded to those books of theirs which 
were admitted into the canon of the Old and 
New Testament, and which are therefore pre- 
served, it must also be conceded to those which 
were not admitted into the canon, and have 
therefore perished. The oral discourses of Jesus 
and the apostles were doubtless inspired, and yet 
many of these discourses are lost; and even of 
those which were committed to writing, only 
extracts of the more important parts were in 
many cases preserved. There is nothing incon- 
sistent, therefore, in the supposition that God 
should suffer even an inspired book to be left 
out of this collection, and consequently to be 
lost to posterity. But there is no evidence that 
any of the books which are lost ever belong- 



ed to the canon. Paul wrote, as we see from 
his epistles, at least one letter to the Corinthi- 
ans more than we have at present. Many me- 
moirs of Jesus, as we find from Luke, i. 1, were 
written at a very early period. The historical 
books of the Old Testament were extracted from 
larger historical works, which are often cited 
in the books compiled from them, but which 
are now lost. Other collections of songs are 
mentioned ; as, nc : n ifiD, Joshua, x. 13. Writ- 
ings of the prophets Gad, Nathan, Semaja, and 
Jehu, are mentioned in Chronicles; but none of 
these ever belonged to the collection of the Old 
and New Testament scriptures. Cf. Jahn, 
Einleitung. 

II. Integritas Partialis. 

The integrity of a book is not affected by 
variations of the text, and by false readings. 
These could not have been avoided, except by 
miracle, in the numerous transcripts which have 
been made of these ancient scriptures. The in- 
tegrity of a book requires only that its text be 
in such a state that the object for which the 
book was written is fully answered. When we 
assert the integrity of the Bible, therefore, we 
do not pretend that every letter, word, and ex- 
pression in our present copies exactly answers 
to the original text, but that the general contents, 
the doctrines of the Bible, are taught in it with 
uncorrupted correctness and certainty. 

The variations of the text of the New Testa- 
ment amounted, according to the estimate of 
Wetstein, to sixty thousand; and of the text of 
the Old Testament to a still greater number. 
But by all these variations no doctrine of any 
importance is undermined or altered, and no 
history of any interest is disfigured or changed. 
A few of the texts by which some doctrines 
were supported have, indeed, been discarded — 
e. g., 1 John, v. 7 ; but there are other texts which 
afford to each of these doctrines an ample proof; 
so that the doctrines themselves remain unal- 
tered. Besides, the most important variations, 
those which affect the sense most materially, do 
not concern the doctrines of religion or the ob- 
jects of faith, but some indifferent circumstances, 
trifling historical minutiae, &c. Without giving 
up the integrity of the Bible, then, we may freely 
concede that in some few places the true reading 
is lost beyond recovery. 

The Text of the Holy Scriptures is not so corrupt 
as to prevent the attainment of the object for 
which they were written. 

1. Of the text of the New Testament. The 
supposition that the text in all the manuscripts 
of the New Testament has been intentionally 
and generally falsified cannot possibly be made. 
Any falsifications must have been made either 
by the reigning ecclesiastical body (catholici) 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



57 



or by some of the sects (haeretici) during the 
first three centuries. But among the former, 
there was no man during this period of sufficient 
authority to cause the alterations which he 
might have made to be generally adopted. The 
jealousy existing among individual churches 
and teachers was far too great, and the use of 
the Christian scriptures far too general, to allow 
an intentional falsification to be made. These 
scriptures were publicly read, and were there- 
fore familiar to every Christian. This was the 
case certainly with those more important parts, 
which, if any, would have been falsified. There 
were also many translations made from the va- 
rious manuscripts of the original Greek, the 
text of which still agrees in every important 
particular with our own. 

The text of the New Testament was, indeed, 
intentionally altered and corrupted by some of 
the heretics — e. g. Marcion ; but those altera- 
tions were immediately discovered and con- 
demned by the orthodox churches. In fact, 
these heretics freely acknowledged that they 
themselves had fabricated them, and did not 
pretend to follow the original text. 

2. Of the text of the Old Testament. The 
opinions which formerly prevailed respecting 
the integrity of the text of the Old Testament 
were much more extravagant than respecting 
that of the New. These opinions were founded 
on the exaggerated accounts which were given 
by the later Jews respecting the pains which 
their ancestors, especially the Masorites, had 
taken to preserve the sacred text unaltered. 
They went so far as to say, that in consequence 
of this caution, not a single mistake or false 
reading had been able to creep into the original 
Hebrew text. And they extended the same re- 
mark even to the accents and vowel points. 
John Buxtorf, father and son, professors of the 
Hebrew language at Basel, during the last part 
of the seventeenth century, adopted these fabu- 
lous Jewish opinions and stories, and advocated 
them with great zeal. Through their influence 
and that of their disciples, as the principal 
cause, these opinions became very prevalent 
among the Swiss, and even Lutheran, theolo- 
gians at the end of the seventeenth and the be- 
ginning of the eighteenth century. In Switzer- 
land they were regarded as essential points of 
orthodoxy, and placed as such in the Formula 
consensus Helvitici. But, 

(1 ) The exactest agreement of all our present 
manuscripts would not prove the present text to 
be throughout true, for all our present Hebrew 
manuscripts follow the same Masoretic recen- 
sion; and their agreement would only prove 
that this recension had suffered no corruption. 

(2) This supposed agreement has, however, 
been disproved since our manuscripts have been 
compared. They differ widely from one another, 

8 



as appears from the vast number of various read- 
ings collected by Kennicott and De Rossi. 

(3) The Hebrew manuscripts from which 
the ancient versions — for example, the Septua- 
gint — were made differed still more widely ; and 
in some instances quite another recension of the 
Hebrew text was at the foundation of these ver- 
sions. 

But however great may be the corruptions 
which are found in particular books or passages 
of the Old Testament, they do not materially 
affect the Christian religion, which does not 
stand in such an intimate connexion with any 
parts of the Jewish scriptures that it must stand 
or fall with them. But the same is true on this 
subject with respect to the Old Testament as 
was remarked above with respect to the New. 
Not a single doctrine is undermined or weak- 
ened by all these various readings. Nor can it 
be proved that the text has in a single instance 
been intentionally corrupted in favour of parti- 
cular doctrinal prejudices. Even the Samaritan 
text of the five books of Moses, the most im- 
portant of the Hebrew scriptures, exhibits their 
contents with entire fidelity, and in entire ac- 
cordance with the texts of.our common Hebrew 
manuscripts. 

Cf. Rich. Simon, Hist, critique du V. T., 
Rotterdam, 1685, 4to. Capellus, Critica Sacra, 
Paris, 1650. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins alte 
Testament, Th. I. Cap. II. Lichtenstein, Pa- 
ralipomena critica circa textum Vet. Testamenti, 
Helmstadt, 1799, 4to. Jahn, Einleitung. Also 
the writings of Kennicott and De Rossi. 

SECTION VII. 

OF THE TRUTH AND DIVINITY OF THE DOCTRINES 
TAUGHT BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. 

The truth and divinity of the doctrines con- 
tained in the Christian scriptures must be con- 
sidered before the divinity of these scriptures 
themselves. 

The principal proofs which Jesus himself and 
his apostles produced in favour of the divinity 
of their doctrines are the following: 

I. Proof from the Claims which Jesus himself made. 

Jesus frequently called himself an immediate 
divine messenger. He declared that he taught 
his religion by the express command of God, 
and as his deputed ambassador, Matt. xxvi. 63 ; 
John, v. 43 ; xvi. 27, 28, et passim. This de- 
claration of Jesus, so often repeated, is, in itself 
considered, of great weight. The same preten- 
sions have, indeed, sometimes been made by im- 
postors and enthusiasts; but the whole charac- 
ter and conduct of Jesus were such as to free 
him from the imputation of being either an ho- 
nest enthusiast or a crafty impostor. He is the 
very opposite of what impostors and enthusiasts, 



53 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



even of the best description, usually are; he 
practised none of the arts of deception, and he 
appealed confidently and unreservedly to his in- 
nocence, even in presence of his enemies ; and 
challenged them to convict him, if they were 
able, of a single act of dishonesty, John, viii. 
46, seq. 

This proof has been carefully stated by Storr, 
Doctrina Christiana, p. 28 — 34, and by Dr. 
Hensler, Die Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit der 
christlichen Religion in der Kiirze dargestellt, 
p. 26—32, Hamburg, 1803, 8vo. 

II. Proof from the Excellence, Suitableness, and Be- 
neficial Tendency of this Religion. 

This proof is called argumentum internum 
pro veritate et divinitate religionis Christianas. 
Jesus himself makes use of this argument, John, 
vii. 17. It is also employed by the apostles, 
and by the ancient apologists of Christianity, 
Justin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Clemens 
of Alexandria. That the Christian religion is 
surpassed by no other in the purity, simplicity, 
and practical utility of its doctrines, is perfectly 
obvious, and, even at the present day, is gene- 
rally acknowledged. No sage or moralist, of 
ancient or modern times, has accomplished so 
great a work as has been done by Christ; has 
taught such salutary doctrines — doctrines which 
exert so benign an influence in comforting and 
renovating the heart of man. And this every 
one may know from his own experience who 
makes a personal application of these doctrines 
til the manner which Christ has prescribed. 
Vide Introduction, s. 3, ad finem. 

The religion which, by its doctrine and disci- 
pline, accomplishes all this, and which is so 
taught as to effect what had never before been 
lone by man, deserves to be called divine; and 
must be acknowledged, even by the rationalist, 
to be, on this account, at least important and 
worthy of respect. But the internal excellence 
of the Christian religion does not, in itself con- 
sidered, satisfactorily prove that this religion is, 
as a matter of fact, derived immediately from 
God ; the utility and benevolent tendency of a 
doctrine prove only that it is worthy of God, and 
not the fact that it is derived from him. As this 
is a question of fact, it can be proved only by 
other facts. Vide Introduction, s. 8. III. 2, note. 
Hence it is that this proof from the internal ex- 
cellence of the Christian religion is always in- 
sisted upon, to the exclusion of the proof from 
miracles, by those who deny any immediate di- 
vine revelation in the higher sense. That di- 
vine revelation in this sense cannot be suffi- 
ciently established by this internal argument 
may be seen from the Introduction, s. 7, I. ad 
finem. 

But although this internal argument does not, 
separately considered, satisfactorily prove the 



immediate divine origin of the Christian religion; 
it is still of great importance — 

1. To the sincere inquirer. A conviction of 
the inherent excellence of the Christian religion, 
and of its benevolent tendencies, is of the great- 
est importance to the candid inquirer in seriously 
examining the other proofs by which the divi- 
nity of our religion is supported. It prepares 
his mind to receive them, and predisposes him 
to believe any evidence that may be offered, or 
any declarations that may be made, by one wh) 
gave such excellent precepts, and lived himself 
in a manner so conformed to them, as Jesus did. 
Jesus declared that his instructions were derived 
immediately from God. Vide No I. Now if 
the inquirer finds that the religion of Christ ac- 
complishes what might be reasonably expected 
of a religion of divine origin ; if he finds that its 
founder possessed a pure moral character, and 
was neither an impostor nor a deluded enthusi- 
ast; he will give credit to his pretensions, and 
feel himself bound to admit the evidence that 
may be offered of his divine mission. 

2. To the practical Christian. The belief of 
the truth and divinity of the Christian religion 
arising from its internal excellence and its bene- 
ficial effects, is in the highest degree important 
to every practical Christian. His whole estima- 
tion of this religion depends upon his having 
felt this excellence, and joyfully experienced 
these benefits, in his own heart. These experi- 
ences produce a firm conviction in his mind of 
the truth of this religion, which no theoretic 
doubts are able to shake. 

These feelings arising in the heart of the true 
Christian, as he studies, applies, and practises 
the instructions of his religion, and the firm con- 
viction of the truth and divinity of his religion, 
arising from these feelings, is called testimonium 
spiritus sancti internum — i. e., a conviction of 
the divinity of the Christian religion produced 
in the mind of man by the Spirit of God. This 
conviction is not a conclusion, but a feeling, from 
which the truth is inferred. Vide Morus, p. 39, 
40. The term testimonium (//.aprvpia), taken 
from Rom. viii. 16, and 1 John, v. 6, was ap- 
plied to this inward persuasion, in contradistinc- 
tion to the name testimonium externum spiritus 
sancti, taken from Heb. ii. 4, which was given 
to the proof afforded by miracles. 

The internal witness of the Spirit denotes those 
pious feelings and dispositions which God or 
the Holy Spirit awakens in us by means of the 
Christian doctrine, and which are the evidence, 
the internal proof, to us, that this doctrine is 
true. " Ultima ratio, sub qua et propter quam 
fide divina et infallibili credimus, verbum Dei, 
esse verbum Dei, est, ipsa intrinseca vis et effica- 
cia verbi divini, et spiritus sancti in scriptura lo- 
quentis testificatio et obsignation Quenstedt, 
Systema, I. p. 140. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



59 



This intimate persuasion is perfectly rational, 
and by no means visionary. It is not produced 
in us in a miraculous manner, by direct divine 
agency, but it results from the truths which we 
have understood and obeyed. We are conscious 
in our inmost souls that since we have embraced 
this heavenly religion, and have faithfully obey- 
ed its precepts, we have had more peace and 
happiness, and more strength to execute our vir- 
tuous resolutions, than ever before. In this way 
we are brought to the conviction that the Chris- 
tian religion is the true and only means of pro- 
moting our happiness, and of imparting that 
quiet of mind, and that strength for virtue, which 
we need. And from this conviction we pass to 
the conclusion, that the Christian religion is true 
and divine, and that Jesus and his apostles are 
to be believed when they declare it to be such. 
We have found this doctrine to be possessed of 
higher excellences and of a greater efficacy than 
any other with which we have been acquainted, 
and hence conclude that it is the very means 
which God himself has appointed for our good. 

This proof of the divine origin of the Chris- 
tian religion, derived from its nappy effects, is 
often urged by Christ, John, vii. 15 — 17, coll. 
viii. 47; and also by the apostles, 1 Thess. ii. 
13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 — 4 ; Acts, ii. 14 — 37; and par- 
ticularly from the effect of the discourses of 
Jesus, Matt. vii. 28, 29 ; Luke, xxiv. 32. This 
proof, explained in this way, is conformed both 
to reason and observation ; and the feelings 
upon which it rests must have been experienced 
by every true Christian. Cf. s. 124, II.; 
N6sselt,„Diss. inaug. de interno testimonio spi- 
ritus sancti, Halle, 1767. Gehe (Superintendant 
at Oschatz), Diss, inaug. de argumento, quod 
pro divinitate religionis Christianas ab experi- 
entia ducitur, Gottingen, 1796. Morus, p. 40. 

III. Proof from Miracles. 

In this place we shall consider only what we 
are taught on this subject by the writers of the 
Old and New Testaments, and the point of view 
in which they regarded it ; adding a few obser- 
vations for the purpose of illustration. Here- 
after, in the Article on Divine Providence, s. 72, 
we shall consider the arguments and objections 
of a philosophical nature. 

1. The following names are given to miracles 
by the sacred writers, and by Jesus himself: — 
rryoa, rm^a, correspondent to which in the Sep- 
tuagint, and in the New Testament, are the 
words hvva{iL<;, hwdpus, because miracles are 
proofs of the divine power. nSs, ^ai^acaa, 
^av/xata, something extraordinary, which ex- 
cites wonder. na*e, rlpaj, -rlpa-r'a, prodigia, por- 
tenta, something monstrous, which excites the 
idea of a tremendous force, nix, arj/x^la, ostenia, 
because miracles are signs or evidences of di- 
vine interposition ; whence they are also called 



the hand of God, the finger of God. « niSysc, *pya 
tov Qeov. The miracles of Christ are frequently 
called 1'pya, by way of eminence. The divine 
power by which miracles were wrought was 
called nil, c/vip nn, rtvEvfia ayiov, rtvevfia &eov, 

2. These biblical names of miracles clearly 
shew that the sacred writers considered miracles 
to be events effected by divine poweT, unlike 
those which commonly occur in the known 
order of nature, established by God, and inex- 
plicable to us by the laws of nature, and there- 
fore calculated to excite surprise and wonder. 
Such events are not necessary for the establish- 
ment of a natural religion ; but they are indis- 
pensable to the establishment of any religion 
which announces itself as revealed from God in 
any other way than through the reason of man, — 
of a religion, in short, like the Christian, which 
is a positive religion, and in which Christ ap- 
pears in the character of a divine messenger to 
disclose the m\nd of God. The peculiar doe- 
trines of this religion are not cognizable from 
the nature of things, but are taught us by per- 
sons who assert that they themselves were 
taught by God. Now if they would obtain cre- 
dit in this assertion, they must be able to prove 
their divine mission by proper evidence. They 
cannot do this by proofs drawn from reason; 
they therefore resort to miracles. 

Properly speaking, these miracles are wrought 
by God. In performing them, he does not alter 
or disturb the course of things which he himself 
directs, or counteract the laws which he himself 
has established ; but he accomplishes, by means 
of nature, which he has thus constituted and 
which he governs, something more than is com- 
mon, and in connexion with unusual circum- 
stances. 

[Note. — This is here maintained in opposition 
to some theologians of former times, who held 
that in case of a real miracle the course of na- 
ture was disturbed, or the laws of nature coun- 
teracted. " Mir -acuta vera etproprie dicta sunt, 
quae contra vim rebus naturalibus a Deo inditam, 
cursumque naturalem, sive per extraordinariam 
Dei potentiam efficiuntur ; ut cum . . . aqua in vi 
num convertitur, mortui suscitantur," &c. Quen- 
stedt, Systema, P. I. et II. p. 471, Yiteberga?, 
1685, fol. The same opinion is expressed by 
Buddeus. Miracles, he says, are "operationes 
quibus naturae leges ad ordinem et conserva- 
tionem totius hujus universi spectantes, re vera 
suspenduntur" Instit. theol. dogm. p. 245. 
They are likewise defined by Wegscheider as 
" eventus insoliti admirationem excitantes ; ideo- 
que a cooperatione causae, humanas vires super- 
antis, et rerum naturse cursum consuetum, kgea- 
que in efficiendo ejusmodi eventu tollenfis, ple- 
rumque repetiti." Institutiones, p. 173, s. 46. 
But with respect to this opinion, Augustine pro- 



ft 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



perly asked, " Quomodo est contra naturam, 
quod est voluntate Dei, quum voluntas tanti 
utique creatoris, conditae rei cujuslibet natura 
sit." De Civ. Dei, XXI. 8. This opinion led 
to the supposition that in connexion with every 
miracle there was a miraculum restitutionis, by 
which the confusion occasioned was obviated, 
and the proper order restored. Vide J. Jac. 
Ebert, Dubitationes contra miracula restitu- 
tionis. 

The following remarks on this subject are 
from Tieftrunk, Censur des chr. protest. Lehrbe- 
griffs, s. 263 — 265: "The efficient supersen- 
sible Being may not suspend the laws, or disar- 
range the course of nature; but must employ 
nature as the means of producing the designed 
result. What is miraculous is not therefore 
contrary to nature (widernatiirlich), but extraor- 
dinary, preternatural, (aussernatiirlich.) The 
wonder-working Being produces in the sphere 
of sense, and by the laws which govern this 
sphere, such an effect as does not occur in the 
ordinary course of things, and could not be pro- 
duced by the mere powers of nature. A miracu- 
lous event seems to encroach upon the course of 
nature, without disturbing or displacing it. But 
this encroachment cannot be accounted for by 
any natural causality, and must be ascribed to a 
higher power working according to the laws of 
sensible nature. But we must not suppose that 
this supersensible cause acts in a laivless man- 
ner in working miracles ; for although we are 
unacquainted with the laws which prevail in the 
sphere of spirit, we must still believe that some 
laws are there in force; and if we knew what 
they were, v/e should consider the same events 
which now appear miraculous as perfectly na- 
tural." Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen 
Glaubens, s. 24, Leipzig, 1828.] 

In this extraordinary exertion of his power, 
God has ever some great moral end in view ; 
since it is inconsistent with reason and scripture 
to suppose that he acts without respect to an 
end. Now the end for which miracles are per- 
formed is clearly revealed. They are the cre- 
dentials of the divine messengers, and invest 
with a divine authority their precepts, promises, 
threatenings, and whatever else they may de- 
clare ; for no teacher ever did or can work a 
miracle by his own power : he can only act as 
the instrument in the hand of God, the author 
and governor of nature. When God, therefore, 
raises the dead, or performs any other miracle, 
through the instrumentality of a teacher, he thus 
declares that this teacher is divinely commis- 
sioned, that through him he shall speak, and 
act, and accomplish his purposes. He thus fur- 
nishes his ambassador with credentials, secures 
him the attention of his fellow men, calls upon 
them to acknowledge the divinity of his mission, 
and to receive his heavenly doctrine. This, 



then, as we are taught by the Bible, is the end 
for which miracles were wrought. True mira- 
cles are the credentials which God gives his 
ambassadors of their divine mission ; and every 
teacher who performs them should be received 
as a messenger sent from God. For it cannot 
be supposed that the God of truth would enable 
an enthusiast, or a crafty impostor, or any false 
teacher, to perform real miracles, since he would 
thus set his own seal to a falsehood. Hence 
we may safely argue the falsity of all the al- 
leged miracles which are wrought for the con- 
firmation of doctrines and declarations which are 
demonstrably untrue, and therefore not of God, — 
such, for example, as were wrought by the false 
prophets in ancient times, and which are de- 
clared in the Bible to be deceptive. 

On these principles, Christ and his apostles 
prove the divinity of their mission and doctrine, 
by the miracles which they performed in view 
of their contemporaries, Matt. xi. 3, seq. John, 
xiv. 11. Vide Scripta Varii argumenti, ed. 2, 
p. 187. And in consequence of the miracles 
which he wrought, Jesus was received by many 
of his contemporaries as a teacher sent from 
God, John, iii. 2; ix. 35—38. This belief in 
his character arising from his miracles, was ap- 
proved by Jesus himself, Matt. xi. 2 — 6, 20 — 24. 
Sometimes, however, he justly blamed the Jews 
for seeking constantly after signs and wonders. 
As to the object of the miracles which he per- 
formed, he distinctly declared, that they should 
be considered as proof (Gr.utiov) that he, as a 
man, did not teach his own wisdom, nor act 
from his own will, but as the organ of God, the 
creator and governor of the universe; and that 
his instructions should therefore be considered as 
divine instructions (%6yot), and received and 
obeyed as coming from God. Vide John, iii., 
v., vi., viii., xii., xiv., xvi. ; Acts, ii. 22 ; x. 38. 
Miracles are regarded by Christ and the apos- 
tles as always intended by God to promote the 
success (ffwEpyst^ou,) and confirm the authority 
(Sspcuovv) of the doctrine taught by the one 
through whom they were performed. Mark, 
xvi. 20. The apostles refer, in the Acts and in 
the epistles, to three kinds of miracles — viz., 
(1) those wrought upon Jesus, to prove his au- 
thority, especially his resurrection from the 
dead ; (2) those wrought by him ; and (3) those 
which they themselves performed. 

The proof from miracles, impressing, as they 
do, the bodily senses, often produces a strong 
conviction, and is especially adapted to those 
who are insensible to the proof drawn from the 
internal excellence of the Christian religion, 
and the effects which it produces on the hearts 
of men. 

3. How far is the proof from miracles still 
valid 1 May it be urged at the present day 1 It 
has been rejected, in modern times, as wholly 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



61 



destitute of evidence, by Rousseau, Hume, and 
all the rationalist theologians. Hume main- 
tained, that however strong might be the evi- 
dence in favour of any miracle, there was always 
stronger evidence against it; and that every 
miracle was contradictory to the reason and ex- 
perience of all ages... In order to render the mi- 
racles of the Bible suspicious, he collected all 
manner of marvellous histories, and endeavoured 
to shew that the miracles of the Eible had less 
evidence to support them than many of these 
pretended miracles, which were universally 
allowed to be false. The proof from miracles 
was also abundantly canvassed in the contro- 
versies with Lessing. 

We may freely concede, (a) that this proof 
must have carried a stronger and more resistless 
evidence to the minds of those who themselves 
saw the miracles with their own eyes, than to 
the minds of others living at a distance from the 
scene, or after the time in which they were per- 
formed ; and (b) that Christ and his apostles in- 
tended their miracles primarily for their contem- 
poraries, who expected and demanded evidence 
of this nature, and who would receive the true 
religion more readily, and believe it more firmly, 
if it came to them supported by such evidence 
as was conformed to their previous opinions and 
expectations ; and that this proof may so far be 
said to be temporary. But (c) it can by no 
means be said to be destitute of evidence for all 
;who were not the contemporaries of Christ and 
the apostles. If any at the present day are con- 
vinced of the historical truth of the miracles 
wrought by Christ, to them the proof derived 
from miracles must still be perfectly valid. For 
to attempt to prove a priori, as is usually done, 
that miracles are impossible, is the height of folly 
and presumption. Moreover (d) the system of 
truth which was taught by Jesus, the apostles, 
and prophets, is consistent with itself only on 
the supposition that it was corroborated by mi- 
racles. They laid claim to the character of ex- 
traordinary divine messengers — a claim which 
could not be supported except by extraordinary 
events. Vide Introduction, s. 7, 8. The rea- 
son, now, that so many deny the evidence of mi- 
racles is, that they are unwilling to admit this 
extraordinary claim, which miracles are intended 
to establish. 

The historical credibility of the miracles of 
Christ may be proved in two ways : 

(1.) From the testimony of the apostles them- 
selves. We reason thus : (a) they were able to 
know the truth. They were contemporaries of 
Christ, and eye-witnesses of his works. They 
enjoyed the best opportunity for examining and 
scrutinizing everything which he did. Nor were 
they credulous ; but, on the contrary, slow to be- 
lieve, as Christ himself says, Mark, xvi. 14. 
They perfectly agree in their testimony, and in 



open court refer to the miracles of Christ as uj 
undisputed facts, known to the world, Acts, ii. 
22. (b) They intended to speak the truth. Theii 
whole character is such as to free them from the 
suspicion of intentional deception. If they had 
been influenced by considerations of wordly 
interest they would not have embraced Christi- 
anity, from which they had little to hope, and 
everything to fear, as to their temporal prospects. 
Besides, the style of their narratives is so sim- 
ple, artless, and unaffected, that every unpreju- 
diced reader must feel himself compelled to ac- 
knowledge that they understood and believed 
what they wrote, and had no intention of deceiv- 
ing their readers. 1 John, i. 1, seq. Cf. Morus, 
p. 16—20. 

(2) From the testimony of those who were 
not followers of Christ, and even of those who 
were opposed to his religion. The Jews who 
were contemporary with Christ allowed that he 
had wrought miracles, (John, xi. 47,) and did 
not venture, to accuse him, before a judicial tri- 
bunal, of deception in performing them. Even 
the Talmud makes mention of his miracles, and 
allows their historical truth, although it under- 
takes to account for them in different ways. 
And so the pharisees, when they were unable 
to deny the reality of the miracles of Christ, pre- 
tended, as a last resort, that they were the work 
of the devil. And even the apostate Judas, who 
lived on terms of perfect intimacy with his Mas- 
ter, could not bring against him the charge of 
deception, and confesses at last, in despair, that 
he had betrayed innocent blood ; whereas, if he 
had known or suspected any dishonesty, he 
would surely have justified his crime. And if 
he did not know of any dishonesty, we may 
safely conclude that there was none; since the 
imposture could not have been executed without 
pecuniary means, which were placed in the hands 
of Judas. Matt, xxvii. 4, seq. Those who op- 
posed Christianity during the first periods of its 
existence — namely, Celsus, Hierocles, and Ju- 
lian, did not doubt the historical truth of the mi- 
racles of Christ, although they ascribed them to 
magical arts. Morus, p. 26, 27. 

IV. Proof from the fulfilment of Ancient Prophecies 
in Christ. 
In urging this proof, Jesus and his apostles 
had primary, though by no means exclusive, re- 
ference to the Jews, in whose sacred books these 
predictions respecting the Messiah were contain- 
ed. This proof will be particularly considered 
in connexion with the office of Messiah, s. 89, 
90, in the Article on Christ. 

V. Proof from the Prophecies of Christ himself. 
Every prediction of future incidents may pro- 
perly be regarded as a miracle. All which was 
said, therefore, respecting the proof from mira- 
F 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



cles, may be applied to this proof and the one 
preceding-, both of which are parts of the gene- 
ral proof from miracles. 

With respect to the proof from prophecy, we 
remark now more particularly, that in order to 
its validity, (1) The prediction must be histori- 
cally true — i. e., must have been actually made 
before the events to which it relates, and not 
fabricated afterwards, nor even enriched by the 
addition of any circumstances which may have 
occurred in connexion with the fulfilment of the 
original prophecy. (2) It must not, like most of 
the oracles of the ancient heathen world, hide its 
meaning under an artful ambiguity of expression. 
(3) The exact and perfect fulfilment of the pre- 
diction must be capable of proof from history. 
If any prediction answers these conditions, it 
must be allowed to come from God, and to be of 
the nature of a miracle, 2 Pet. i. 19. 

God only can foresee future and fortuitous 
events. When a man therefore foretells events 
of this nature, he proves that he is instructed 
and commissioned by God. The Jewish pro- 
phets who laid claim to the title of divine am- 
bassadors were required, therefore, in proof of 
their pretensions, to foretell the future. Christ 
himself made use of this proof to support his 
own claims, John, xiii. 19; xiv. 29. He fore- 
told, in the most distinct and accurate manner, 
his own impending fate, (Matt. xvi. 21, seq. 
Luke, xviii. 31 — 33 ;) and also that of his dis- 
ciples, Matt. x. 18, seq. He predicted that his 
religion would prevail upon the earth, and con- 
tinue to the end of the world ; and this, too, at a 
time when its destruction must have appeared 
to every one in the highest degree probable. 
He predicted the destruction of the temple, and 
the overthrow of the Jewish state by the Romans, 
Matt. xxiv. ; Luke, xxi. This latter prediction 
was very minute, and was fulfilled, according 
to the testimony of Josephus, in every particu- 
lar. Cf. the valuable treatises on the prophecies, 
collected by Hurd and Halifax. Thomas New- 
ton, Treatise on the prophecies which have 
been remarkably fulfilled. Less, Wahrheit der 
christlichen Religion, s. 472, ff. Gottingen, 
1785. 

Morus, p. 24, seq., s. 14, seq. 

Note. — It thus appears, that in investigating 
the truth of Christianity we must proceed as 
we do when we investigate any subjects of an 
historical nature. We must believe what we are 
taught in the holy scriptures, upon the authority 
af the testimony by which it is supported. We 
are indeed gratified to find other reasons, beside 
positive divine testimony, on which to found our 
belief in the truths of religion; but these addi- 
tional reasons are not essential to our belief. 
And in cases where we are unable to discover 
them, we may believe upon the simple divine 
testimony. Nor are we chargeable with credu- 



lity in so doing, any more than when we be- 
lieve, on credible testimony, any fact which may 
for a time be incomprehensible. 

Cf. Joh. Friedr. Kleuker, Neue Priifung und 
Erklariing der vorziiglichsten Beweise fur die 
Wahrheit und den gottlichen Ursprung des 
Christenthums, wie der Oflfenbarung iiberhaupt, 
3 Bde, Riga, 1787—94, 8vo. Koppen, Die 
Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit, Ausg. 
2, Rostock and Leipzig, 1797-8, 8vo. Storr, 
Doctrines Christianas, &c, p. 21, seq. Siiskind 
(Prof, of theology at Stuttgard), Eine histo- 
risch — exegetische Untersuchung, In welchem 
Sinne hat Jesus die Gottlichkeit seiner Religion 
und Sittenlehre behauptet] Tubingen, 1802, 
8vo. Hensler, Die Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit 
der christlichen Religion, in der Kiirze darge- 
stellt, s. 33—48. 

SECTION VIII. 

OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE 
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, OR THE HIGHER 
DIVINE INFLUENCE ENJOYED BY THE SACRED 
WRITERS. 

Introductory Remarks. 

I. The two following positions — viz., the doc- 
trines taught in the books of the Bible are of di- 
vine origin, and these books themselves are given 
by God, are by no means the same, and need to 
be carefully distinguished. The divinity of the 
doctrines of the Bible was considered in s. 7; but 
this does not necessarily involve the divinity of 
the Bible itself. The doctrines of revelation 
are frequently contained in books of devotion, 
for example, but it is not pretended that on this 
account these books are of divine origin. The 
truth and divinity of the Christianreligion might 
be satisfactorily proved if the books of the New 
Testament were acknowledged to be merely ge- 
nuine, and the authors of them merely credible; 
so that the divinity of the Christian religion need 
not be considered as depending on the divinity 
of the holy scriptures. The two things were dis- 
tinguished from each other as early as the time 
of Melancthon. 

Religion, therefore, is more concerned, as 
Michaelis has justly observed, in having proof 
for the authenticity and genuineness than for the 
inspiration of the sacred volume. Still the sin- 
cere friend of truth will surely be rejoiced in 
finding reason to believe in the immediate divine 
origin of the books of our religion. If this higher 
divine influence, called inspiration, were not en- 
joyed by the apostles in those instructions which 
they have left us, how easily could we be dis- 
turbed by the suspicion that they misunderstood 
some of the doctrines of Christianity, or failed 
to exhibit them in a proper manner! They 
were liable, we might then say, from their de- 
voted attachment to the person of Christ, and 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



63 



their high esteem for his character, to adopt 
false and exaggerated opinions respecting his 
nature, and his future exaltation. In this way, 
if these books were not believed to be given by 
inspiration of God, the most important positive 
doctrines of Christianity might be considered 
doubtful ; as has been done, in fact, in modern 
times, by those who deny the inspiration of the 
scriptures. 

2. Inspiration has been defined in different 
ways. Cf. the historical sketch, s. 9, 10. It 
may be best defined, according to the representa- 
tions of the scriptures themselves, to be an ex- 
traordinary divine influence by which the teachers 
of religion were instructed what and how ihey 
should write or speak, while discharging the duties 
cf their office. There is no need of any distinc- 
tion betwen their oral and written discourses. 
Morus, p. 30, s. 24. The correctness of 
this definition will hereafter appear from the 
texts which will be cited from the New Testa- 
ment. 

Note. — It may be regarded as a settled point 
that inspiration is not impossible, and that no 
argument fr priori can be urged against the his- 
torical evidence of the fact. This was truly 
remarked by Kant, Religion innerhalb der Gran- 
zen der reinen Vernunft, 2 Ausg. Konigsberg, 
1793, 8vo; and also by Fichte, Versuch einer 
Kritik aller Offenbarung, 2 Ausg. Konigsberg, 
1793, 8vo. 

I. Inspiration of the New Testament. 

1. This cannot be proved from the testimony 
of the fathers. They can command belief only 
when they testify respecting things which could 
be known by observation; such as the authen- 
ticity of a book, or the age of the writer. Nor 
can the divine origin of the Bible be proved by 
the argument by which we prove the divine 
origin of the doctrines it contains — viz., the in- 
ternal witness of the Holy Spirit, s. 7. Still less 
can it be proved from the miracles which the 
sacred writers performed. These arguments for 
the inspiration of the Bible were unknown to the 
ancients, and were first employed in the seven- 
teenth century by the theologians of Helmstadt, 
who succeeded Calixtus. 

2. The great argument upon which protest- 
ants rely in proving the inspiration of the scrip- 
tures presupposes only the genuineness of the 
books, and the credibility of the authors of the 
New Testament. Vide s. 7; cf. Morus, p. 17 — 
20, s. 3—9, and p. 32, s. 28. We hold that 
every book of the New Testament which is ge- 
nuine, and which was really written by an apos- 
tle, is inspired, or written under a special divine 
influence. In proof of this point, we rely upon 
the express testimony of Jesus, who explicitly 
and solemnly promised to his disciples a peculiar 
divine assistance whenever they should be call- 



ed upon to teach, confirm, or defend his reli- 
gion, to the service of which he had consecrated 
them. 

Christ promised his disciples this peculiar 
divine assistance on four different occasions : — 
(a) when he first sent them forth, Matt. x. 19, 
20 ; (b) in a discourse in which he commis- 
sions them to publish his religion, Luke, xii. 
11, 12; (c) when he predicted the destruction 
of Jerusalem, Mark, xiii. 11; Luke, xxi. 14; 
(d) in his last address to his disciples, John, 
xiv. — xvi. On these occasions he promised 
them to Ttvzvfxa aytov, an extraordinary divine 
influence to attend them constantly, and secure 
them against error. He said to them in Mark, 
that when they spoke under this divine impulse, 
it would not be they who spoke, but the Holy 
Spirit, (ovx tats v[xsl$ ol "koXovvtss, oXko* to 
Ttvsvf^a to ayiov.) He forbade them to pre- 
meditate what they should say before judicial 
tribunals, since they should then be taught by 
the Divine Spirit, not only what but how they 
should speak, (^ fispifiwvicfqts rtwj v ti XaX>j- 
GYj'ts' So&rfietao yap v/jliv x. t. k.) The object 
of the apostles, in those discourses in which 
the divine assistance was promised, was not 
only to defend themselves, but to give instruc- 
tion in Christianity. 

Now, if the apostles were assisted in this 
manner in their discourses, which were merely 
oral, and of course of a very temporary and li- 
mited advantage, how much more should they 
be assisted in their written instructions, which 
were destined to exert a more lasting and extend- 
ed influence ! " Est enim scriptures et prxdica- 
tionis par ratio. Quae enim voce praedicabatur 
doctrina, ea postea juvandae memorise causa con- 
signabatur Uteris, et quae causa erat cur praedi- 
cationem ex divina inspiratione oporteret peragi, 
ea militabatpro scriptione eo magis, quod scrip- 
tura deberet esse medium doctrinae ejusdem in- 
corrupte ad finem mundi usque conservandee, et 
ad posteritatem propagandas." Joh. Musaeus 
in Spinosismo, p. G9. Divine assistance was 
promised to the apostles, in general terms, in 
the discharge of their duties as teachers, whe- 
ther they spake or wrote; and the words %oXtlv 
and rtapaxateiv are applied with equal propriety 
to speaking and writing. According to John, 
xiv. — xvi., Christ promised his disciples that so 
often as the circumstances of time and place 
might require, they should enjoy the constant, 
uninterrupted assistance of the Holy Spirit, as 
their Paracletus, their counsellor, and assistant. 
According to John, xvi. 7 — 11, the Holy Spirit 
would convince the world through them, (by 
their writing, therefore, as well as speaking.) 
And finally, the apostles and evangelists them- 
selves ascribe the same authority to their writ- 
ings as to their oral instructions, John, xx. 31 ; 
1 John, i. 1—4; 2 Thess. ii. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 1, 



64 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



coll. u. 13; Ephes. iii. 3, seq. ; Acts, xv. 23, 
seq. 

The Holy Spirit, beside the general assistance 
which he would render the apostles, should, ac- 
cording to the promise of Christ, reveal to them 
many things of which Christ had not spoken, 
John, xvi. 12—15. That in their teaching they 
might be secure from mistake, even with respect 
to knowledge which they might have acquired 
in the unaided use of their own faculties, he 
should remind them (vTCopvriasv) of all that Christ 
had taught them ; and himself instruct them in 
everything ($t§a|« rcdvta) necessary for the 
discharge of the duties of their office, John, xiv. 
26. He should reveal to them future events, 
John, xvi. 13 ; endow them, when necessary, 
with miraculous powers, Mark, xvi. 17 ; correct 
their mistakes, and impart to them new instruc- 
tions whenever they were called for, John, xvi. 
12; xiv. 26. So that whatever the apostles 
taught might be regarded as coming from God. 

This testimony of Christ is the foundation of 
the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Tes- 
tament. And from this testimony we see clearly 
the propriety of the definition of inspiration 
given in the introductory remarks. In order to 
shew in what estimation the apostles held their 
own writings and those of their fellow-labour- 
ers, it deserves to be mentioned, that the epis- 
tles of Paul were placed by Peter on a level 
with the scriptures of the Old Testament, which 
were then regarded by both Jews and Christians 
as divine, 2 Pet. iii. 16. 

These promises of special divine assistance 
were not, indeed, originally made to Mark and 
Luke, who were not apostles. But each of them 
was the disciple and assistant of an apostle. 
"Mapzof [AO&rjtvis xai epfi£vsvtv}$ Ylstpov, xai 
av-tbs ta V7tb Hitpov xr]pvoao^isva iyypa^wj qfiiv 
rtapiSwxE," Irenseus, Adversus Hsres. III. 1. 
Luke stood in a similar relation to Paul, by 
whom his writings were supposed to be sanc- 
tioned. "Lucee digestum Paulo adscribere 
solent," Tertullian, Adversus Marc. IV. 5. 
The writings of Mark and Luke, therefore, being 
either dictated or sanctioned by inspired apos- 
tles, must be regarded as possessing divine au- 
thority. " Potest magistrorum videri, quae dis- 
cinuli promulgarint," Tertullian, ubi supra, IV. 
5. Besides, as they were the companions and 
fellow-labourers of the apostles, they may be 
supposed to have been endowed, as such, with 
the higher gifts of teaching, to have enjoyed the 
same divine influence when they wrote and 
spake, and therefore to be entitled to equal cre- 
dit with the others in what they teach. Nor 
were these promises originally made even to 
Paul, who was not, like the other apostles, a 
companion of Jesus; but they were afterwards 
extended to him, since he was appointed an 



apostle by Jesus himself, and enjoyed all the 
privileges of an apostle, and was acknowledged 
by the others as one of their own number 

Morus, p. 19, s. 7. 

II. The Inspiration of the Old Testament. 

The Jews at the time of Christ generally con- 
sidered the books of the Old Testament to be in- 
spired ; by which they did not mean, merely, 
that the doctrines contained in them were of di- 
vine origin, but that the books themselves were 
divine, being the productions of inspired pro- 
phets. Vide Josephus, Contra Apionem, I. 7. 
They all agreed in this point, although they had 
different opinions respecting the mode and the 
degrees of inspiration. It is not enough to say 
that Christ and the apostles did not disclaim thi3 
prevailing opinion of the Jews ; they assented to 
it, and presupposed and confirmed its truth. 
They received the Old Testament, in all its 
parts, as divine. The texts in which the several 
books of the Old Testament are cited, are enu- 
merated by Storr, Biblical Theology, vol. 1, s. 

13, 14 (of the translation.)* Now if Christ and 
his apostles were inspired men, as has been 
shewn, No. 1, their testimony with respect to 
the inspiration of the ancient scriptures is deci- 
sive. And this testimony affords the most brief 
and convincing proof which can be offered for 
the inspiration of the Old Testament. Vide 
Morus, p. 23, s. 13. 

It is worthy of remark, that though Christ 
and his apostles laboured to subvert the Jewish 
dispensation, and to establish a more perfect one 
in its place; they still regarded the Mosaic doc- 
trine, institute, and writings, notwithstanding 
their imperfections, as divine. These imperfec- 
tions were inevitable to the ancient economy, 
which was designed for the world while yet in 
its infancy, and incapable of a higher instruc- 
tion. 

That the apostles assented to the Jewish opi- 
nion respecting the inspiration of the Old Tes- 
tament, is abundantly evident from various and 
explicit passages in their writings. Their opi- 
nions on this subject are exhibited with most 
clearness in the two following texts : — 

1. 2 Tim. iii. 14 — 17. In this passage, Paul 
exhorts Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which 
was taught by the apostles, because they were 
inspired teachers, and because their doctrine wa9 
accordant with the ancient scriptures. In ver. 

14, he mentions the first reason : " Continue 
thou in the things whi<;h thou hast learned 
stSwj rtopa ilvo$ ifia^fj." In ver. 15 he men- 
tions the second reason : Continue thou in the 
things which thou hast learned (for this is the 

* Pages 66 — 72, in the edition forming part of 
Ward's Library of Standard Divinity. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



G5 



force of xai,) because thou hast from a child known 
the holy scriptures (of the Old Testament,) td 
bvvdutvd as ffcxjHcrac. his GootrjpLav 8cd 7ti6tsu>$ iiqs iv 
Xptsra "Irjoov, which can instruct you in the 
knowledge of that salvation which we obtain by 
the Christian doctrine. Here Paul expresses his 
opinion that the Old Testament leads to Christ, 
and is preparatory to Christianity. In ver. 16, 
he proceeds to say, Ilasa ypcuj»? ^sorivsvotos (for 
§so7tvsv(rto$ ov<?a, according to Clemens of Alex- 
andria, Theodoret, the Syriac version, the Vul- 
gate, and nearly all the theologians of the six- 
teenth century ; otherwise the article must be 
inserted before ypa$/}, and the comma after it be 
retained,) xai diipii.iy.os rtpbs 8i8aoxo.%iav , rtpb$ 
e%Ey%ov, rtpbs irtavop^toGiv, ripbs 7i(iibtlav trjv iv 
SixaioavvY], All inspired scripture (no part of it 
excepted) is also profitable for instruction (in the 
Christian religion), for conviction (confutation 
of errors, &c.),/or improvement, and for disci- 
pline in virtue or piety. Ver. 17, "Ivo, dpttos 
ij o tov &eov dv^rpcorCos, rtpbs rcdv tpyov dya^bv 
i%7}p-ti,ou£vosi By means of the Old-Testament scrip- 
tures the servant of God (Christian teacher) may 
become fitted, and truly qualified for his import- 
ant work. In this passage, therefore, Paul ex- 
presses the opinion, that the books of the Old 
Testament are inspired, and that, when rightly 
employed, they are useful even in Christian in- 
struction. 

2. 2 Pet. i. 19, 20. Vide Scripts Varii Argu- 
ment^ t. i. p. 1, seq. In this passage, Paul 
shews, in opposition to Jews and judaizing he- 
retics, that Jesus was the true Messiah. In 
shewing this, he now appeals to those predic- 
tions of the Jewish prophets which had been 
fulfilled in him. Ver. 19, " We (apostles) find 
the oracles of the prophets (respecting Christ) 
much more convincing now (since they have 
been fulfilled ;) and ye will do well to attend to 
them. Formerly, before their fulfilment, they 
were obscure, like a lantern shining feebly on a 
dark path, until the appearance of Christ upon 
the earth, from which event a clearer light now 
proceeds, and we can better understand the pro- 
phecies." Ver. 20, "Nor could the prophets 
themselves of the Old Testament give a clear 
explanation (irtihvtiis from in^vscv, explicare, 
Mark, iv. 34,) of their own oracles, because 
they had only indistinct conceptions of the sub- 
jects on which they spake, and knew only so 
much as was communicated to them, from time 
to time, by divine revelation." (This is the 
context of ver. 21 ; and what is here said agrees 
with the passage, 1 Pet. i. 10 — 12.) Ver. 21, 
Ov yap Sshrjixato (]f$T, yen) dv^purtov yvE^r; 
fSots riposte ta, dxx' vrib 7ivEvuatos dylov (divine 
impulse and guidance) fyEpopsvoi, (^ipso^ai, mo- 
veri, agitari, — the word by which the Greeks 
commonly described the inspiration of their 



minstrels, prophets, soothsayers of the temple 
of Apollo, &c. ; vide s. 9;) i%d"K7jaav oytot ©toy 
ou&pcortot (the prophets of the Old Testament,) 
for no oracle was delivered from the mere will of 
man, (i. e., whether they should speak, and 
what and how they should speak, did not depend 
on the will of the prophets ;) but the ancient pro- 
phets spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 
The prophets themselves acknowledged, that 
whatever they taught, whether by speaking or 
writing, was dictated to them by God, or the 
Divine Spirit, and w r as published by his com- 
mand, Ex. iv. 12, 15, 16; Deut. xviii. 18; Jer. 
i. 6, seq.; Amos, iii. 7 ; Is. Ixi. 1 ; Cf. Morus, 
p. 20, seq. 

This passage from Peter proves the inspira- 
tion only of the prophetical part of the Old Tes- 
tament, and not, strictly speaking, of the rest. 
But from the two passages taken together, it is 
obvious that the apostles believed the Old Tes- 
tament, as a whole, to be inspired. We can find 
no evidence in all the New Testament that 
Christ and his apostles dissented in the least 
from the opinion commonly received among the 
Jews on this subject. But the Jews regarded 
the entire collection of the Old-Testament scrip- 
tures as divine. They were frequently called 
by Josephus and Philo, §htao ypa<pcu, t?pa ypdy- 
uata, and always mentioned with the greatest 
veneration. Divine inspiration (irtlrtvoia &sov) 
is expressly conceded by Josephus to the pro- 
phets .- and as none but prophets were permitted 
by the Jews to write their national history, and 
none but priests to transcribe it, (as appears 
from the same author ;) we conclude that inspi- 
ration was also conceded by him and his con- 
temporaries to their historical books. Josephus, 
Contra Apionem, I. 6, 7, 8. Cf. Morus, p. 20. 

Such were the prevailing opinions of the Jews 
of the first and second centuries, and long be- 
fore the birth of Christ; and to these opinions 
Christ and his apostles plainly assented; they 
must, therefore, be adopted by all who allow 
Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers. 
The contemptuous expressions which many have 
permitted themselves to use with regard to the 
Old Testament are, as Morus justly observed, 
Epitome, p. 24, Christiano indignae voces. 

The doubt may arise whether some of the his- 
torical books can be considered as the produc- 
tions of prophets, as they were compiled from 
other works after the Babylonian exile. But no 
essential difference is made, even if what is sup- 
posed be true; since the most important parts 
of these historical books were extracted from 
larger histories, and ascribed to the prophets by 
whom they were originally written. So the ex- 
tracts made in the books of Kings and Chroni- 
cles, from a larger history of Jewish kings, ara 
ascribed to Isaiah. 

f2 



66 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION IX. 

HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS, COMPARING THE CON- 
CEPTIONS AND EXPRESSIONS OF THE ANCIENT 
WORLD RESPECTING IMMEDIATE DIVINE INFLU- 
ENCE. 

I. The Idea of Inspiration Universal. 

We find that every nation of the ancient 
world believed in immediate divine influences, 
although the particular conceptions which they 
entertained on this subject varied with their 
local circumstances, and the different degrees of 
their intellectual culture : but in consequence of 
the prevalence of a strict and scholastic philoso- 
phy in modern times, our own conceptions on 
this subject have become widely different from 
those which formerly prevailed, and can hardly 
be brought into agreement with them. The at- 
tempt has frequently been made to reconcile the 
modes of thinking and speaking respecting di- 
vine influences, which were common in all an- 
tiquity, with the philosophical principles of our 
own day. But this attempt has not been very 
successful; and the entirely different methods 
which have been adopted by writers to effect 
this reconciliation are a sufficient proof of the 
difficulty of the undertaking. 

From the above remarks we may conclude — 

1. That since these conceptions are found to 
exist among all people, and to be everywhere 
very much alike, especially in the early stages 
of cultivation, they must be natural to the hu- 
man mind, and result directly from its original 
constitution. 

2. That if God has seen fit to make a direct 
revelation to any particular man or nation, he 
has accommodated himself in so doing to these 
original conceptions of the mind, and has, as it 
were, met them on the way in which they were 
coming towards him. This might be reason- 
ably expected from the Divine wisdom and good- 
ness ; for how should a wise and good father 
deem it improper to adapt the instructions which 
he gives to his children in their education to 
their natural expectations, and to answer the de- 
mands of their minds 1 This shews us the rea- 
son why true inspiration, such as the apostles 
and prophets enjoyed, resembles so much in its 
external signs, how wide soever the internal dif- 
ference may be, the false and imaginary inspira- 
tion to which the prophets and teachers of the 
heathen world pretended. The reason of this 
resemblance between real and pretended inspi- 
ration should be carefully noted, because the 
comparison of the two has been frequently turn- 
ed to bad account. 

3. That the explanations which are frequently 
given of those passages of the Bible which treat 
of inspiration cannot be true. Some modern 
writers explain away the sense of these passages 
till nothing seems to be left of literal inspira- 



tion, and everything accords with their philo- 
sophical system. But by applying these his- 
torical observations to these passages, we find 
that the sacred writers intended to teach a lite- 
ral inspiration in the proper sense, and were so 
understood by their contemporary hearers and 
readers. 

II. Rude Nations believed Great Men to be Inspired. 

Nations in the first stages of improvement 
believe that everything which is great, which 
excites their wonder, or surpasses their compre- 
hension, is the result of immediate divine 
agency, and overlook the second causes to which 
these effects are to be ascribed. Accordingly, 
they regard useful inventions, laws, and reli- 
gious institutions, as gifts bestowed directly by 
God, and the distinguished men through whom 
these blessings are bestowed as the favourites 
and messengers of God, and therefore entitled 
to the highest reverence. This statement is 
abundantly proved from the mythology of the . 
ancient nations, and especially of Greece. 
Through these men God was supposed to speak ; 
and what they said was regarded as the word of 
God, and they, themselves as holy or consecrated, 
as is implied in all the ancient languages. Thus 
minstrels and prophets were called by the an- 
cient Greeks ciyiot and Ssiou, by the sacred 
writers n^n,"?, D^rftsn i^x, 2 Kings, i. 9, ayioi 
®sov uiv^pcorioc, 2 Pet. i. 21; also d\s^j, which, 
according to its Arabic etymology, would denote 
messengers, ambassadors, (of God.) The term 
£co7tpo,-toj (Homer, Iliad, XII. 228) signifies 
one who speaks in the place of God, vates. Cicero, 
Pro Archia Poeta, VIII. , says that poets were 
supposed divina quodam spiritu inflari, and that 
they were called sancti, quod quasi deorum 
aliquo dono atque munere commendati nobis esse 
videantur ; and XII., that they semper apud 
omnes sancti sunt habiti atque dicti. Cf. Dresde, 
Proluss. duo de notione prophetae in codice 
sacro, Wittenberg, 1788 — 89. Morus, p 
20, 21. 

III. Great Men believed themselves to be Inspired. 

Those who felt themselves urged on to great 
and noble deeds, or irresistibly compelled to 
communicate their feelings to others, believed 
the impulses by which they were actuated to be 
supernatural, and that they were the organs 
through whom the Deity spake and acted. 
Many of the sages and philosophers of early an- 
tiquity expressed this belief reflecting them- 
selves; and to doubt their sincerity, or to sup- 
pose that they made such pretensions, as artful 
politicians, for the purpose of deceiving their 
contemporaries, would betray great ignorance 
of the history of mankind. The minstrels and 
prophets among the ancient Greeks believed no 
less firmly than their hearers or readers that they 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



67 



were actuated by a divine impulse. This ap- 
pears evident from the writings of Homer. 
What Cicero said, De Natura Deorum. II. 66, 
Nemo vir viagnus sine aliquo afflaiu divino un- 
quam fuit, was universally believed in all anti- 
quity. Accordingly, everything- great and noble 
in the thoughts or actions of the ancient heroes, 
commanders, kings, and sages, all their great 
undertakings, their wars and victories, were 
ascribed to the Deity working in them as instru- 
ments of its own purposes. 

It appears, then, from Nos. II. III., that the 
teachers and prophets of the heathen world, as 
well as those of the Bible, both believed them- 
selves and were believed by others to be in- 
spired. And the question here naturally arises, 
whether the inspiration of the latter as well as 
that of the former may not have been feigned or 
imaginary. This question may be firmly an- 
swered in the negative, with reasons which are 
perfectly satisfactory to the unprejudiced in- 
quirer. The teachers and prophets of the Bible 
were enabled, through the divine wisdom and 
goodness, to give such proof of the reality of 
their inspiration as those of the heathen world 
could never offer. 

IY. Different Nations agree in their Representations 
and Ideas of Inspiration. 
The conceptions formed of the Deity in the 
early ages were extremely gross and sensual. 
Men in the savage state have always supposed 
God to possess a body, and every way to resem- 
ble themselves. Their conceptions respecting 
his influence would not, of course, be more re- 
fined than respecting his nature. In this parti- 
cular, as well as in many others, the ideas 
which the human mind has entertained have 
been everywhere very much the same, as is 
proved by the agreement of various languages. 
Almost all the ancient nations ascribed the di- 
vine influence, by which the confidents of hea- 
ven were inspired to speak or act, to the word 
or mouth of God, or to the breath proceeding out 
of his mouth ; and they accordingly regarded this 
divine influence itself as literally inspiration. 
All this is shewn by the language employed to 
designate their ideas. Vide John, xx. 22. The 
oracles of the prophets were called among the 
Hebrews nw ">s, rrBT n?i, iji ; among the Greeks, 
$r t ur n $acrtj, %6yiov and among the Romans, ora- 
cula, derived, according to Cicero, from ore sive 
oratione Deorum. And these divine influences 
are expressed in all the ancient languages by 
terms which literally designate blowings breath- 
ing, breathing upon, &c. ; in the Hebrew, 
nn, criSs rrn, m-\p nn, nirv n-3 nn; in the Greek, 
rtvsio, ifiTtvico, rtvzvua (aytov or ©sou,) ifxjtvsvst^, 
trttrtvoia ©eov, also ^tEOTivsvcnfos, 2 Tim. iii. 10, 
(vide s. 8 ;) sometimes, xafotv ev rtvEvuati ®eov 
for ^sortvEVGtov £ Xvai, or iTiirivoiav ®sov s%ew in 



the Latin, inspiratio, inspiratus, (a spirando,) 
and spiritu divino instinctum esse, Livy, V. i5, 
afflatus Dei, afflatum esse numine, injlari divino 
spiritu, Cicero, Pro Archia Poeta, VIII. From 
this agreement in the terms by which the an- 
cient nations designated inspiration, we argue 
the agreement of their original ideas respecting 
it; and we conclude that these terms, when 
used in the Bible, must'be understood to denote 
immediate divine influences, since this is. the 
only sense in which they were used in the an- 
cient world. Cf. s. 19, II., and s. 39, I. 

V. Inspired Men often spake vjhal they did not 

understand. 
The ancient nations believed that one whose 
words and actions were thus under the divine 
influences, was himself, at the time of inspira- 
tion, merely passive. Mentes declares to Tele- 
machus, Odyssey, I. 200, 201 — 

fyco jjavrevaofjiai, wj hi Sv/kJ 
'ASavaroi /3a\\ovai. 

Cf. Odyssey, XV. 172. They also believed 
that the soothsayer or minstrel did not himself 
understand, and could not explain to others, what 
he spake, or rather, what God spake through 
him, while he was inspired. This opinion was 
a natural consequence of the former. In con- 
formity with this general belief was the opinion 
of the Jews, as expressed in the Talmud, the 
prophets themselves did not, in many cases, under- 
stand the import of what they predicted. The 
same opinion is expressed by Jo?ephus and 
Philo; and Peter says, 2 Pet. i. 20, 7tpoq>r { >t£la 
l§ia$ E7ii7^v6E^ ov yCvsrat,. Vide s. 8. We find 
the same thing expressed in innumerable pas- 
sages of the Grecian writers. Plato, in his dia- 
logue rtspl "I?aa§oj ("Icoy), puts the prevailing 
notion of the Greeks into the mouth of Socra- 
tes : — Kovtyov xprua rtoir^rfi s<s-tl, xal rttrjvbv, xal 
ispov xal ov rcpotspov oioWf riotfiv rtplv av h>$s6$ 
Tfs yEvyjtao xal txyptav, xal u vov$ urjx&ti l-v avro 
evy. £Co? 8' av tovtl t%vj to xt^ua, d8vvafo$ itav 
tColeIv istlv av^pcorfoc, xal Zp?;6/xa$£lv . . . . ov 
yap T'tx vr l tavta Xiyovoiv, d?^a £■£ la 8vvdusi, . . . 

6 ^fOJ, ffoUpO-UitEVOJ TfOVtiCV vovv, tovtoic, 2p^T0.& 

rrt^psVouj, xal t?oi$ xpr^^holc,, xal toX$ udvreci* 
rotj ^-ttocj' i'va r /;usl$ ol axovov?t$ e18ujuev oft oit% 
ovtoi sialv ol T'aik'a "kiyovtt j, o-uVco rtohtov a|ca, 
olj vov$ ur { TtdpEOtiv, dVK o ^05 egxiv 6 %iyu>v. 
bid "tovtcov 8h ^iyyErat rfpoj ^a$. "The poet 
cannot compose, nor the soothsayer prophesy, 
unless he is inspired by the Deity, and trans- 
ported, as it were, beyond himself. He then 
loses sight of the rules of art, and is borne away 
by the divine impulse. The Deity deprives 
him of his own consciousness and reflection, 
and employs him as an ambassador. It is not 
he who speaks, but God who speaks through him. " 
True inspiration is described in very much the 



63 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



same way, Mark, xiii. 11. Again, Plato says 
in his dialogue rispl 'Apsttjs (Mevcov), 'Op^wj av 

XOl-OLpLSV $£10V$, OtVlVfJ VOVV /X»J b%OV1?£S, rtoh'ka 

xai [££yd%a, xatop^rovciiv d>v Tipatrovov xai "kiyovtii,, 
♦* poets and prophets are justly called divine, 
because while they declare important things, 
they themselves do not understand what they 
say," In the Odyssey, I. 347—350, Telema- 
chus thus checks Penelope in attempting to 
control the bard, 

ISIrjrsp ijih, ri t dp dv 05oi/|sts epirjpov doiSov 
TipTiStv omrrj ol voog Upwrai ; ov vii r' dot Jot 
At not, d\\d rroSt Zeis clitios, 6j re didwav 
1 Av6pd<nv d\(pr)arri<nv b-nwg i^tXriaiv eKaarco. 

Phemius declares, Odyssey, xxii. 346, 

AvToSidaxTOs <3' elpi* Stoj oe (ioi ei> typeoXv 6lpia$ 
Tlavroiaq ivifyvoev. 

In the Sybilline Oracles, an inspired speaker 

says, 

ovts yap o76a, 
'O ti Xiyw, KeXsrai <3' 6 9£dj to. Zkckjt' dyoptveiv. 

So it is said respecting Balaam, (Num. xxiii. 
5,) that the Lord put words into his mouth. The 
ancient minstrels and poets, in whose produc- 
tions art had as yet no share, were called simply 
vlolBol and 6tot dotSot. So they are always called 
in Homer. The word rfow^s is of later origin, 
and was unknown until poetry had become an 
art. Cf. Scripta Varii argumenti, p. 28, 29, 
ed. 2. 

VII. Inspiration described by terms indicating 
Violence. 

The impulse which is felt by those who are 
inspired is commonly very strong and irresist- 
ible. They often betray their emotion by an 
unusual strength of voice, and very violent bo- 
dily movements ; hence, in all the ancient lan- 
guages the terms which designate the words and 
fictions of those who are inspired convey the 
idea of violence of mental feeling and bodily ac- 
tion — e. g., opfivj (impetus), oppaofiat. Those 
who were inspired were said, corripi, agitari 
Deo, xaifsx^^ac ex ©soil, ^Ipjc&cu, (2 Pet. i. 21), 
pati Deum; and inspiration itself was called 
furor divinus, uavla ([xalvso^at.) Accordingly, 
the words which in the ancient languages signi- 
fy to predict, generally signify too, to rage, to 
act like a madman, insanire — e. g., vaticinari in 
Latin, and in Hebrew xajnn, 1 Sam. xviii. 10. 
The impulses attending inspiration were like- 
wise represented in the writings of the Asiatics 
as a spiritual and sacred intoxication ; because 
they transported a man beyond himself, and 
strained and elevated all the powers of his soul. 
Hence the figurative language employed, Luke, 
io 15; Ephes. v. 18. The ancient prophets and 
poets, as we see from Homer, were accustomed 



to employ music and song as a means of exciting 
and increasing inspiration. Elisha did the same, 
2 Kings, iii. 15. And the members of the 
schools of the prophets were ever engaged in 
these exercises, 1 Sam. x. 5, seq. 

SECTION X. 

OF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE MAN- 
NER AND DEGREES OF INSPIRATION. 

I. The Theory that Inspiration in the highest sense 
was extended equally to all Scripture. 

The theory that the divine assistance which 
the sacred writers experienced extended to every- 
thing which they wrote, words and letters not 
excepted, is doubtless one of the oldest in the 
Christian church. In this view of the subject, 
the sacred writers were merely the scribes or 
amanuenses, of the Holy Spirit; and were often 
compared by the ancients to flutes, upon which 
the Spirit of God played. This comparison is 
found in the writings of Justin, Athenagoras, 
Macarius, and other fathers ; and also of the 
modern theologians, Musaeus, Baier, Quenstedt, 
and even of Schubert, in the middle of the eigh- 
teenth century. 

This theory accords very well in many re- 
spects with the mode of thought and conception 
which prevailed in the ancient world, (vide s. 
9 ;) but it is very unlike the ideas which are 
entertained on the subject of inspiration at the 
present day. But it is still more important to 
remark respecting it, that the sacred writers 
themselves never profess to have enjoyed, while 
writing, inspiration of such a nature. And that 
they were not in reality the mere organs of the 
Divine Spirit, whatever may have been supposed 
by their contemporaries, must appear from a mo- 
ment's observation. For (1) we find that each 
of the writers of the Bible has his own peculiar 
style, which perfectly distinguishes him from 
all the rest. It has indeed been said, that the 
Holy Spirit accommodated himsel f to the style of 
each particular writer ; but the one who dictates 
is not wont to accommodate himself to the style 
of the amanuensis. (2) The manner in which 
the sacred writers treat the subjects which they 
introduce, — the costume with which they invest 
them, is often, notwithstanding the dignity and 
excellence of the subjects themselves, rude and 
unpolished, and such as might be expected from 
illiterate and uncultivated writers. This trait, 
at least in their writings, must be ascribed to 
their own agency. (3) In many cases the in- 
spired writers evidently made use of the pro- 
ductions of others : the evangelists composed 
their histories in part from the previous accounts 
of the life of Jesus; the later prophets, Ezekiel 
and Jeremiah, frequently borrowed from the 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



oracles of Isaiah, &c. (4) The sacred histo- 
rians frequently appealed to the evidence of 
their own senses for the facts which they relate, 
to the testimony of others, to the records from 
which they derived their information, and to 
their own investigations, (Luke, i. 1 ;) from all 
which it appears that they were not passive 
under the divine influences, and that they were 
not miraculously endowed with any knowledge 
which they could obtain in the diligent use of 
their own intellectual powers, since God does 
not work miracles when they are unnecessary. 
(5) They frequently speak in their own names, 
send greetings, mention their private affairs (2 
Tim. iv. 13, seq.), &c. (6) In some cases they 
themselves make a distinction between their 
own advice and the express command of God, 
or of Christ, 1 Cor. vii. 25, coll. v. 40 ; 2 Cor. 
viii. 10. 

According to the conceptions of the ancient 
world, (vide s. 9,) the very words employed 
were in some cases, though not always, inspired ; 
and by many writers, both of ancient and mo- 
dern times, the inspiration of the Bible has 
been thought to extend even to the words in 
which it was written. This opinion is advo- 
cated by Ernesti, Xeue Theol. Bibliothek, b. iii. 
s. 468, ff. The argument which he used, and 
which is commonly urged, is this : thoughts 
cannot be clearly communicated to the mind 
without words; and therefore the latter, as well 
as the former, must have been given to the in- 
spired writers by the Holy Spirit. But I may 
obtain a person to write a book under my super- 
intendence and direction ; I may communicate 
to him the ideas to be expressed, furnish him 
with all the materials of the composition, and 
suggest, whenever it is necessary, particular 
words ; and all this without dictating to him 
every syllable and letter to be employed : I may 
leave him, under my close supervision, to exe- 
cute the work in his own way. So Paul might 
have been left by the Spirit to pursue his own 
method in shewing that the Mosaic institute 
must be abolished. But in other cases it seems 
to be necessary that the Holy Spirit should 
have communicated the very words in which 
the things revealed should be expressed; as, for 
example, in certain numbers, or names of persons 
and places, which could not have been known 
except from revelation. Vide Morus, p. 35. n. 
6. Considerations like these prepared the way 
for the views which follow. 

II. The Theory that Inspiration teas extended in dif- 
ferent degrees to different portions of Scripture. 

This theory was adopted in order to avud the 
difficulties resulting from the former. In this 
view of the subject, the degrees of inspiration 
vary with the character of the writer and the 
r^t ure f the subject. This was believed bv 



some of the ancients ; but theologians have never 
been able to agree in deciding how many de- 
grees of inspiration there were, or in what way 
they should be defined ; nor is it probable that, 
on these points, they will ever perfectly agree, 
since the inspired writers have left them unde- 
cided, and we are unable to determine with re- 
spect to objects which lie so wholly beyond the 
circle of our experience. The following are 
some of the principal attempts that have been 
made to determine the manner and degrees of 
inspiration : — 

1. Some theologians are contented with the 
general position, that there are different degrees 
of inspiration, and do not think proper to deter- 
mine under what particular degree any given 
passage was written. They go no further than 
to say, that in writing on subjects of the first 
importance, in communicating; facts which could 
have been learned only from revelation, and in 
cases where there was peculiar liability to mis- 
take, the sacred writers enjoyed the highest de- 
gree of divine influence — the inspiration ofwoTds 
(inspiratio verbalis) ; but that in treating of sub- 
jects of inferior interest — for example, of those 
of a merely historical nature — they enjoyed no 
higher assistance than was necessary to secure 
them against error, to refresh their recollection 
with the knowledge which they had before ac- 
quired, or perhaps to give the first impulse to 
speak or write. These views of inspiration 
were entertained by Michaelis, Doderlein, and 
others. Calixtus thought that it was sufficient 
to say, in general terms, that the sacred writers 
were secured by divine influence a<rainst the 
possibility of mistake. Cf. Morus, p. 36, s. 
29. n. 7. But considering that we are unable, 
at the present time, to determine how much the 
sacred writers knew respecting the several sub- 
jects of which they have treated, from their own 
unaided study, and how much from the direct 
teaching of the Holy Spirit, none of the theolo- 
gians above mentioned have attempted to define 
accurately the degree of inspiration under which 
particular portions of holy writ were composed. 

2. Other theologians have denied that all the 
books of the Bible were inspired, or that the 
whole of the inspired books was written under 
special divine assistance. Those who have en- 
tertained this opinion may be subdivided into 
different classes. Some £0 so f ar as to say, 
that some parts of a book may be of divine ori- 
gin, while other parts of the same book are ot 
human origin only, and must therefore be care- 
fully distinguished from the former. 

If we ask. now. which parts — of the epistle 
to the Romans, for example — are divine and 
which human, we shall receive various answers. 
Henry Holden. as cited by Richard Simon, 
would say, that only those parts were to be re- 
[ ceived as inspired which the sacred writers 



70 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



themselves expressly declared were spoken by- 
God ; and that the other parts, whether they 
related to history or doctrine, were to be re- 
garded as human. Others would say, that what- 
ever related to the doctrines of religion was in- 
spired. Semler, in his Treatise on the Canon, 
and likewise Kant, maintained that the general 
moral utility of a work was the only criterion 
by which its inspiration could be judged; that 
an inspired book must therefore be calculated 
to promote the moral improvement of all men 
in all ages ; and that consequently those parts 
only of our scriptures which had this tendency 
were inspired. 

According to the last opinion, some parts of a 
book — those of universal application, and of ge- 
neral moral utility — are inspired, while other 
parts of one and the same book, not possessing 
these marks of divinity, are merely human. 
To this view it may be objected, (1) that by 
subjecting inspiration to the criterion of utility 
it does the same as to deny it altogether; since 
what might be received as divine by one, from 
the general utility which he might suppose it to 
possess, might be denied this character by an- 
other, as wanting, in his view, this mark of 
inspiration. (2) It is chargeable with the error 
of reasoning h priori upon a question of fact — 
an error which cannot be justified; for if God 
has seen fit to give special divine aids to any 
individual, we are not to determine by our rea- 
sonings, and prescribe as it were to God, what 
and how great they may or must have been. 
(3) It does not correspond with the view of the 
inspiration and divinity of a book entertained 
by the ancient world, and of course by the 
sacred writers. Vide s. 9. It is easy to see, 
that while those who hold this opinion retain 
the ancient words inspiration and divinity, they 
endeavour to use them in such a sense as will 
accord with the prevailing conceptions of our 
own age, and with the principles of their philo- 
sophy. 

This opinion is not of recent origin. Tertul- 
lian says, "A nobis nihil omnino rejiciendum 
est, quod pertinet ad nos : et legimus, omnem 
scripturam sedificationi habilem divinitus inspi- 
rari." De habitu mulierum, c. 3. He says 
this in order to defend the book of Enoch. 

Note. — We may indeed decide that a divine 
revelation cannot contain any doctrines subver- 
sive of the moral improvement and happiness 
of men, which we have before shewn (Intro- 
duction, s. 3, 6) to be the great objects for which 
a revelation was made. And we may conse- 
quently determine, that no book which contains 
such hurtful doctrines can be inspired. So far 
Kant, Fichte, and others, are right. But when 
they undertake to prescribe to Supreme Wisdom 
the means by which this end is to be attained, 
they transcend their proper limits. These 



means, it is obvious to every one, must vary 
with the age, character, and other circumstances 
of those for whom they are intended. And 
who can say, that positive religion may not be 
a means of moral improvement, by giving effi- 
cacy to moral religion, and hence be revealed 
and inspired 1 If positive doctrines were not 
contained in the Bible, philosophers would soon 
demonstrate that they must be contained in a 
revelation made from God. 

3. The great body of modern theologians, 
both of the Romish and protestant churches, 
prefer a middle course between the theory first 
mentioned and the opinions last cited. They 
adopt, for the most part, the theory of Claude 
Frassen, a Franciscan monk and a scholastic 
theologian of the seventeenth century, and sup- 
pose three degrees of inspiration. 

(a) The first and highest degree of inspira- 
tion is, the revelation of things before unknown 
to the sacred writers. This is called by Frassen, 
inspiratio antecedens, but commonly by other 
writers, revelation ,• who thus make a distinction 
between inspiration and revelation, and hold that 
revelation is indeed always attended by inspira- 
tion, but that inspiration is not, in every case, 
preceded by revelation. Everything in the sa- 
cred scriptures, they say, is inspired, but every- 
thing there is not revealed ; fur much which is 
contained in the Bible was known to the sacred 
writers from their own reflection. 

(b) The second degree of inspiration is, the 
security against error which God affords the sa- 
cred writers in the exhibition of doctrines or 
facts with which they are already acquainted, 
the care which he takes in the selection, truth, 
and intelligibleness of the subjects introduced, 
and the words by which they are expressed, 
&c. This is called by Frassen, inspiratio con- 
comitans. 

(c) The third degree of inspiration is, the 
divine authority stamped upon waitings, origin- 
ally composed without inspiration, by the ap- 
probation of inspired men, and is called inspira- 
tio consequens. This degree of inspiration is pre- 
dicated of the historical books of the Old Tes- 
tament, which were approved by Jesus and the 
apostles; and of the gospels Mark and Luke, 
which were approved by Peter and Paul, and 
afterwards by John. 

This theory is developed by Doddridge, and 
still more fully by Tollner; the latter of whom 
endeavours to shew, that the authority of the 
holy scriptures as the source of our knowledge 
in matters of faith is perfectly secured, even in 
cases where only the lowest degree of inspira- 
tion is admitted. Vide Tollner, Die gottliche 
Eingebung der heiligen Schrift. 

4. Other theologians deem it sufficient to 
shew that the prophets and apostles enjoyed a 
higher divine assistance and support. Vide s. 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



71 



6. They were induced in various ways, some- 
times by natural means, and sometimes by im- 
mediate divine direction, to write the sacred 
books. They always wrote, as well as spoke, 
as persons enjoying - the influence of the Spirit 
of God. This is the light in which inspiration 
is regarded by Morus, p. 32, seq. s. 27, 28. He 
did not think necessary to determine what par- 
ticular actus §so7iviv(rtlas was exerted in each 
particular actus scribendi. 

It may be well to remark the striking contrast 
between the meagre productions of the fathers 
of the first century and the rich and instructive 
writings of the apostles, most of whom were 
illiterate men. But how, the unprejudiced in- 
quirer will be compelled to ask, could the latter 
have written in such a widely different manner, 
and one so superior to that of the fathers, if they 
had not enjoyed a higher divine assistance? 

Note. — The following works on this subject 
may be recommended to the attention of the stu- 
dent. Rich. Simon, Histoire Critique du V. 
T., especially ch. 23 — 25 ; and the Letters of a 
Dutch divine on the critical History of Simon, 
edited by Le Clerc. The opinions-contained in 
this work, some of which are true, and others 
false and partial, have been developed by mo- 
dern theologians. Among modern works, the 
following are most distinguished : — (1) Semler, 
Abhandlung von freyer Untersuchung des Ca- 
nons, 4 Thle, Halle, 1771—75, 8vo. The dif- 
ferent theories are here illustrated and examined. 
This work induced Schmid, Miiller, Pittiscus, 
and others, to undertake the defence of the com- 
mon doctrine. (2) Tollner, Die gottliche 
Eingebung der heiligen Schrift, Mitau und 
Leipzig, 1782, 8vo. (3) Koppen, Die Bibel 
ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit. This book 
contains many excellent observations on the 
origin and collection of the different parts of the 
Bible. (4) Fichte, Versuch einer Kritik aller 
Offenbarnng, Konigsberg, 1793, 8vo — a pro- 
found inquiry respecting the possibility of direct 
revelation, and the criteria by which it is to be 
judged. (5) Sonntag, Doctrina inspirationis, 
ejusque ratio, historia, et usus popularis, Hei- 
delberg, 1810, 8vo. 

Note 2. — The teacher of religion should not 
trouble the common people and the young with 
the recondite investigations of ancient and mo- 
dern theologians respecting the nature, manner, 
and degrees of inspiration, or respecting the an- 
cient mode of thought and expression on this 
subject. In his public instructions he should 
confine himself to the scriptural view of inspira- 
tion exhibited in s. 8. He should, as Calixtus 
and Morus have done, give prominence to the 
truth, that the sacred writers were, by divine 
aid, perfectly secured against error. He should 
explain to his hearers the promises of assistance 
which Christ gave his disciples. In doing this, 



he will sufficiently establish and confirm their 
faith. But he ought not by any means to with- 
hold this doctrine from those whom he is ap- 
pointed to teach, since it is a doctrine taught in 
the Bible, and is calculated, as there exhibited, 
to produce a deep and happy persuasion of the 
truths of revealed religion. Nor should he at- 
tempt to modernize this doctrine, but should 
rather labour to restore it to its early simpli- 
city. 

SECTION XL 

OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES OF 
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

Since the sixteenth century, the theologians 
of the protestant church have endeavoured to ob- 
viate various opinions, respecting the nature and 
use of the Bible, which appeared to them erro- 
neous, by treating in their systems of the attri- 
butes of the holy scriptures. Most of what they 
say on this subject is aimed against the doc- 
trines of the Romish church. The following are 
the principal attributes of the Bible: — 

I. The Intelligibleness of the Holy Scriptures. 

The protestant church has maintained from 
the first, in opposition to the Romish, that the 
holy scriptures are intelligible. The popes have 
always been anxious to crush a spirit of free in- 
quiry in the members of their church, to subject 
belief to human authority, and to arrogate to 
themselves a judicial power, even in matters of 
faith. But they saw, at once, that the free use 
of the Bible would be very much in the way of 
the success of their designs ; and therefore either 
wholly interdicted, or at least encumbered the 
common use of it, under the pretence that it was 
full of obscurities, calculated to mislead or con- 
found the faith of the laity, which ought to de- 
pend upon tradition or ecclesiastical authority. 
Vide Introduction, s. 7, III. and Art. I. s. 13. 
This extravagant opinion, however, is only re- 
ceived by the more zealous adherents of the 
papal see, and is rarely entertained by the theo- 
logians of the Gallican church. 

On the other hand, many protestant theolo- 
gians have entertained opinions respecting the 
intelligibleness of the Bible which are equally 
extravagant. The truth on this subject may, 
perhaps, be best expressed as follows : — The 
holy scriptures are so written, that the first read- 
ers, for whom they were especially designee!, 
could understand the greater part of them with- 
out the necessity of laborious interpretation, and 
that even we can obtain from them a clear ac- 
quaintance with those doctrines of religion whic^ 
are essential to our improvement, comfort, and 
salvation. There is no need of proving more 
than this. The following remarks will illustrate 
the view here expressed ' — 



72 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



1. Many parts of these books must have been 
unavoidably obscure even to the contemporaries 
of the sacred writers, from the nature of the sub- 
jects of revelation. Many of the subjects 
Drought to view in the epistles of Paul were 
hard to be understood, even at his own time, 2 
Pet. iii. 16. And much that was written under 
divine influence was unintelligible even to the 
sacred writers themselves. Vide s. 9, V. But 
as Buddeus justly observes, " alia est perspi- 
cuitas rerum, alia verborum." 

2. The writers of the Bible employed the lan- 
guage and style which were common in the age 
in which they lived, and understood by the 
public for which they wrote; they expressed 
themselves in conformity with the modes of 
speech and thought then prevalent: of course, 
their writings must have been, for the most part, 
intelligible to their contemporaries, to whom 
they had always primary reference in what they 
wrote. 

3. But in consequence of this very circum- 
stance, much which was then perfectly intelli- 
gible is so no longer. Our language is wholly 
unlike the Hebrew or Hebraistic Greek in which 
they wrote. And our manners, customs, opi- 
nions, and modes of thinking, are equally 
changed. If we were able to place ourselves in 
the circumstances and enter into the feelings of 
the inspired authors, we should find their writ- 
ings comparatively easy and intelligible. But 
common Christians cannot do this ; and even the 
most learned will find passages in the Old and 
New Testaments which, after all their efforts, 
will remain doubtful and obscure. If, however, 
we set aside all passages of this nature, we shall 
find enough left to give us a clear and sure 
knowledge of the essential doctrines of religion. 
These difficult and obscure passages commonly 
have no bearing, or, at most, a very remote one, 
upon the truths of salvation. And it is fre- 
quently the case, that when an important doc- 
trine or duty is expressed with apparent obscu- 
rity in one place, it is exhibited elsewhere with 
so much the greater clearness. Experience 
shews, that people in common life have been 
able to acquire, by the exercise of a sound under- 
standing, and by the aids of the divine Spirit, a 
fund of useful knowledge and of important prin- 
ciples, even from very defective translations of 
the Bible. Indeed, an illiterate man, who pos- 
sesses a sound understanding and good charac- 
ter, and studies the Bible without prejudice, will 
often understand it better, and with more ease, 
than the scholar, who first adopts his opinions 
and then endeavours to find them in the Bible. 
The latter looks upon all the doctrines of the 
Bible through a discoloured medium. The holy 
scriptures were not written for the scholar, as 
such ; nor were they intended to afford materials 
for speculation, but rather enjoyment for the 



heart. Hence they are often misunderstood anc 
despised by those whose feelings are deadened, 
and who have little taste for anything but spe- 
culation. Most of the writers of the Bible were 
themselves illiterate men, and lived in familiar 
intercourse with common people. They there- 
fore meet the wants of this class of society, and 
agree with the common mode of thought and 
expression better than the learned commonly do. 
This consideration is overlooked by those who 
would take the Bible from the hands of the com- 
mon people. It is truly remarked by Thomas a 
Kern pis, that the holy scriptures must be read 
with the assistance of the same Spirit by which 
they were inspired. Now this may be enjoyed 
by all — by the unlearned as well as the learned, 
if they only sincerely wish to obtain it. 

It should be remembered, too, that the very 
difficulties and obscurities which occur in the 
Bible have been very beneficial to the human 
race by exercising, and of course strengthening, 
the powers of the mind. If the scriptures were 
so plain that all parts of thern could be under- 
stood without study, they would not furnish 
nourishment «nd employment for the spirit of 
inquiry. Lessing made the bold assertion, that 
the human race had not been benefited so much 
by the doctrines taught in the Bible as by the 
inquiries and investigations to which the Bible 
had given occasiou. 

Some have attempted to prove the intelligible- 
ness of the Bible from texts of scripture ; but an 
opponent would not allow the testimony of a 
writer in his own behalf to be valid proof; nor 
do these texts (such, for example, as compare 
scripture with a light, enlightening men, and 
shewing them the way to true happiness, Psa. 
xix. 8; cxix. 105) apply so much to the scrip- 
tures themselves as to the doctrines which they 
contain. 

II. The Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures. 

When we say the holy scriptures have an effi- 
cacy, we use figurative language ; forthis efficacy 
belongs rather to the doctrines and principles 
contained in the scriptures. Theologians have 
been led to adopt many fine distinctions on this 
point, by the controversies which have existed 
respecting the means of grace. We shall con- 
sider these distinctions in connexion with the 
means of grace, s. 133, II. 

III. The Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. 

When we assert the infallibility of the holy 
scriptures, we mean to say, that if any doctrine 
of religion can be clearly shewn to be taught in 
them, it must be received as true, and needs no 
further evidence ; according to the maxim, sen- 
sus hermeneutice verus, est etiam dogmatice verus. 
This position is grounded on the fact, that the 
authors of the Bible were rendered infallible by 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



73 



divine influence, according- to the promise of 
Christ, John, xiv. 26. It is taken in opposition 
to those who rely unduly upon unaided reason 
in matters of faith. Vide Introduction, s. 7, II. 
and s. 8, 9. But before we can prove that any 
doctrine is taught in the holy scriptures, we 
must be sure of the uncorruptedness of the sa- 
cred text, and of the justice of our interpretation 
of it; and as both of these points are sometimes 
attended with difficulties, we cannot apply this 
maxim to much purpose in particular cases, al- 
though, abstractly considered, it is perfectly 
true. 

IV. The Authority of the Holy Scriptures. 

1. Audoritas normativa. By this is meant 
the authority of the Bible to bind men to believe 
and do what it teaches and prescribes. This is 
likewise called audoritas canonica (petito voca- 
buloexGal. vi. 16.) Vide Morus, p. 37. This 
authority depends upon the infallibility of the 
scriptures, and also upon their divine origin. 
Moreover, the writers of the New Testament re- 
quire that every doctrine should be examined 
by the instructions of Jesus and his apostles, 
and should be received as obligatory, if found 
to agree, but otherwise, should be rejected, 1 
John, iv. 1, coll. 2 John, v. 10 ; Gal. i. 8. Paul 
exhorts Timothy to hold fast the doctrines of 
true Christianity (yyiaivoviss Ttoyot), the sum of 
which (tn;o-rr7tcoccc, what we now find in the 
writings of the apostles) he had taught him with 
his own mouth, 2 Tim. i. 13. Jesus himself 
required that the doctrines which he taught 
should be received on his mere authority, and 
frequently brought no other proof than the sim- 
ple assertion, : Eyw 8s %£ya v/xlv. He gave Ni- 
codemus to understand that he acted very incon- 
sistently in acknowledging his divine authority, 
and yet questioning the truth of his assertions. 
The question which Nicodemus asked, " How 
can these things be ?" was indeed very natural ; 
and the serious inquirer after truth will always 
rejoice to have it answered. But if it cannot be 
answered, he must be content with the mere as- 
sertion of a teacher whose divine authority he 
must acknowledge : he must say with respect 
to Christ, as Pliny the younger said of a certain 
Wise man, tua raihi audoritas pro ratione sufficit. 

2. Audoritas judidalis. By this is meant, 
that the scriptures are the final appeal in mat- 
ters of faith and practice. No doctrines opposed 
to the Bible can be admitted as true by those 
who receive it as an inspired book. Christ and 
the apostles everywhere appeal to the Old Tes- 
tament, and thus shew that they, and the Jews 
generally, regarded it as divine, John, v. 39 ; 
Matt. xxii. 44; Acts, xv. 15. But in applying 
the judicial authority of scripture to particular 
cases, everything depends upon the justice of 
the interpretation; and we must frequently say, 

10 



that it is rather the interprets than the scripture 
which decides. Most theological controversies 
owe their origin to the different interpretations 
of the Bible ; and every theologian pleads the 
audoritas judidalis of scripture in behalf of his 
own opinion, because he regards one particular 
sense of the words as true. The question is, 
how he proves that this sense is the true one, 
and whether he interprets the Bible on just prin- 
ciples] 

The text, Heb. iv. 12, 13, where the word of 
God is said to be xpn!ixbs h^vix^asuv xal ivvoiuv 
xapSux?, is often cited in this connexion. But 
the phrase ?.6yoj ©eou here signifies the divine 
threatenings against sinners and apostates. The 
meaning of the text is, the threatenings of God 
relate not merely to the outward actions, but to 
the most secret purposes of evil. 

V. The Sufficiency or Completeness of the Holy 
Scriptures. 
1 . The sufficiency of the doctrines of the Bilk, 
All the doctrines affecting the improvement, 
comfort, and salvation of men, which were 
taught by Jesus, the apostles, and prophets, are 
contained in the holy scriptures, without any 
omission. This completeness (plenitudo) of 
the scriptures is called by Paul, Acts, xx. 27, 
7ta6a,v ^ov%y]v tov ©gov, the whole divine plan of 
salvation. This attribute of scripture is main- 
tained in opposition both to those who receive 
from tradition some doctrines of faith which are 
not found in the Bible, and to those who, under 
the influence of enthusiasm, would make addi- 
tions from new, pretended revelations to the doc- 
trines really revealed. In opposition to both of 
these classes, this attribute may be truly predi- 
cated of the holy scriptures ; for the instructions 
which the Bible contains respecting the way of 
real happiness here and hereafter are so com- 
plete that we have no occasion to resort either 
to the dark sources of tradition or the assevera- 
tions of fanatics. But, on the other hand, when 
we affirm the sufficiency of the scriptures we 
must not be understood to mean that the Bible 
is a repertory of information respecting the arts, 
sciences, literature, and every object of human 
knowledge. These things do not fall within 
the scope of the sacred writers, because they do 
not stand immediately connected with the great 
end of man. The instructions contained in the 
Old and New Testaments were adapted to the 
comprehension and wants of those for whom 
they were primarily written. But we are per- 
mitted, according to the example of Jesus and 
his apostles, yea, we are required, to adapt these 
instructions to our own wants, and, by the help 
of these scriptures, to make constant progress 
in 'spiritual knowledge and experience. This 
progress, however, must still accord with the 
Bible, and be regulated by the principles of 



74 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Christianity. The Bible, from which these 
principles are learned, must be the star by which 
we are guided in all our advances. In this view, 
Paul recommends the use of the Old Testament, 
even to Christian teachers, 2 Tim. iii. 15. Vide 
Introduction, s. 5. I. 

2. The sufficiency of the books. This implies, 
that our canon contains books enough to furnish 
the Christian with all necessary knowledge of 
the truths of religion. This cannot be proved 
from the sacred writers themselves; for the 
canon must have been incomplete while any 
one of them was as yet writing. The passage 
Rev. xxii. 18, 19, lav ti$ Irfi^ lit avtd, x. 1. "k. 
was formerly cited in proof of the sufficiency of 
the books of the Bible, by Tertullian, Adv. 
Herm. c. 22, and has since been frequently 
called, as well as the whole book in which it 
stands, sigillum canonis. But the prohibition 
here expressed strictly relates only to the Apo- 
calypse. So much, however, is beyond dispute, 
that the great truths of salvation are repeated so 
often in the Bible, that they might all be learned 
from a much smaller collection of books than 
we have at present. If therefore some part of 
the canon should be rejected as spurious, the 
completeness of the holy scriptures would be 
unaffected, and the system of divine truth re- 
main entire. 

SECTION XII. 

OF THE USE OF THE BIBLE AS THE SOURCE OF THE 
DOCTRINES OF REVELATION. 

I. The Use of the New Testament. 

From the remarks already made, it appears 
that the scriptures of the New Testament are to 
be regarded as the source from which we are to 
derive the knowledge of the principal doctrines 
of the Christian religion. But in deriving the 
doctrines of Christianity from the New Testa- 
ment, we must be governed by the following 
considerations : — 

1. The authors of the New Testament had 
their contemporaries principally in view in what 
they wrote. Paul, for example, in his epistle 
to the Romans, had primary and principal refer- 
ence to the church then existing at Rome, and 
not to the Christian church in succeeding ages. 
These scriptures would have been very differ- 
ently composed if they had been throughout in- 
tended for all ages of the world. Instead of 
containing salutations, allusions to local inte- 
rests, and temporary disputes and errors, and a 
disconnected view of the doctrines of revelation, 
they would have exhibited a complete, connected 
system of religious truth. Those texts of the 
Bible, then, which relate merely to circum- 
stances then existing, but never afterwards, can- 
not be regarded as sources cf Christian doctrine. 



Such texts are indeed useful, in making us ac- 
quainted with the history of the times in which 
they were written, and in furnishing examples 
for imitation, if similar circumstances should 
recur; but in themselves they have no binding 
authority at the present time. Texts of this na- 
ture are those in the Acts of the Apostles, and 
in the epistles to Timothy, which relate to the 
constitution of the apostolical church. For these 
texts the sacred writers do not claim an univer- 
sal and perpetual authority, still less do they 
claim this for all parts of their writings without / 
exception, although they do distinctly for the 
Christian doctrines which they teach. Vide 
Introduction, s. 5, 1, and s. 8, III. 3, b. 

2. Since the scriptures of the New Testament 
were originally adapted to the age in which they 
were written, and always presuppose the oral 
instructions which were given by the apostles, 
we cannot expect that all the doctrines of faith 
should be taught in them with equal fulness and 
clearness. The slight and unfrequent mention 
of a doctrine in our sacred writings does not 
prove its unimportance, since the authors of the 
Bible might have known that it was already 
sufficiently understood and duly regarded by 
those for whom they wrote. Nor does the fre- 
quent and extended discussion of any subject in 
the Bible prove its internal and lasting import- 
ance, since the local circumstances of some 
churches, or the character of certain individuals, 
may have required a more repeated and urgent 
inculcation of particular doctrines than would be 
otherwise advisable. Thus the circumstances 
of the church at the time when the apostles 
wrote led them to insist more frequently and 
strongly upon the abolition of the Mosaic insti- 
tute than they would have done in other circum- 
stances. 

3. The case is exactly the same with the 
manner in which the apostles taught the doc- 
trines of religion. Their manner was adapted 
to the conceptions, views, and capacities of their 
contemporary hearers and readers, and is often 
wholly inappropriate to other persons in other 
circumstances. In bringing the instructions of 
Christ and his apostles in proof of any doctrine 
of religion, we must therefore, in many cases, 
pay more regard to the truth itself which they 
teach, than to the manner in which they illus- 
trate it. For many of the proofs and illustra- 
tions employed successfully by the first teachers 
of Christianity have now lost their force and 
evidence. It is frequently true, that those very 
considerations which must have made the 
strongest impression on the contemporaries of 
the apostles, are least of all convincing to us ; 
while, on the contrary, the proofs by which we 
are most influenced would have been scarcely 
intelligible to them. The proofs which Jesus 
adduced from the Old Testament in behalf of 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



75 



many of his doctrines were far more convincing 
to the Jews than the most powerful arguments 
which could be drawn from human reason. The 
same may be said of many of the illustrations 
contained in the epistles to the Hebrews and 
Galatians. The doctrines of the Bible are un- 
alterably true, and intended for all ages of the 
world ; but the method in which they are taught, 
the costume in which they are invested, the ar- 
guments by which they are proved, were all de- 
signed primarily for the Jews, and are therefore 
hy no means obligatory on the present teachers 
of religion. 

We may therefore affirm, that while it was 
the design of God that religious knowledge 
should be communicated by means of these books 
to all the successive ages of the world, this was 
not the design which the authors of the Bible had 
in view, in a great portion of what they wrote. 
But for the very reason that these sacred books 
were designed for the good of all succeeding 
ages, each particular portion of them could not 
possibly be designed for each successive age. 
What is most useful and necessary for one 
period is not equally so for another. But we 
should expect, that the wants of the present and 
future would be alike provided for in the codex 
of revelation ; and this we find to be done in the 
Bible. Many parts of it, which seem hardly to 
answer the demands of the present day, were 
perfectly adequate to the wants of a former 
period ; and the reverse : and many parts which 
were once in the highest degree useful, and 
have ceased to be so now, may perhaps, in after 
times, become as useful and important as ever. 

4. Those texts of the Old and New Testa- 
ments which exhibit particular doctrines with 
the most fulness and clearness, and are therefore 
most frequently cited for proof or illustration, are 
called sedes doclrinarum, dicta probantia ; more 
frequently loca classica — i.e., primaria, prsestan- 
tissima ,• like auctores classici, first used by Gel- 
lius, XIX. 8 ; and cives classici, the name given 
to those belonging to the first class of Roman 
citizens, into which such only were admitted as 
possessed a certain amount of property, decided 
by law. 

In using these proof-texts many of the ancient 
systems followed a kind of doctrinal or herme- 
neutical tradition, employing such texts only as 
had been adduced by the authors of the sym- 
bols, who, on their part, had employed those 
mostly which had been previously adduced by 
the ecclesiastical fathers, and the theologians 
of the Romish church. As the theologians of 
former times strictly followed the doctrines of 
the symbolical books, they were inclined to 
adopt the arguments and proof-texts by which 
these doctrines were there supported. Hence 
we find almost the same proof-texts, explained 
in the same way, constantly recurring, with 



very slight alterations in the theological sys- 
tems, as late as the middle of the eighteenth 
century. Some of these traditionary texts had 
no bearing on the point which they were in- 
tended to prove, or at best were doubtful and 
obscure; while on the other hand, some of the 
most direct and pertinent texts were never cited. 
In making use of these texts we should never 
lose sight of the above remarks. As Luther 
well observes, we must treat the Bible cau- 
tiously, and inquire not only whether any par- 
ticular truth is taught in the word of God, but 
whether it concerns us or others. " Man muss 
mit der Schrift sauberlich handeln und fahren. 
Man muss nicht allein ansehen ob es Gottes 
wort sey; sondern vielmehr zu wem es geredet 
sey, ob es dich treffe, oder einen andern. Den 
Unterschied sollen wohl merken, fassen, und 
zu herzen nehmen die Prediger, ja alle Chris- 
ten," Luther, Unterricht wie man sich in Mosen 
schicken soil. W T e should also carefully dis- 
tinguish between the truth itself which is taught 
in these passages, and the manner in which 
this truth is illustrated. 

II. The Use of the Old Testament. 

1. Christianity and the Jewish institute are 
not so nearly related that they must stand or fall 
together. It is possible that one who knew no- 
thing of the Jewish religion, and had never read 
the Jewish scriptures, might believe on Jesus 
as the Saviour of the world. And we find, ac- 
cordingly, that when the apostles were called to 
teach the principles of the Christian religion to 
those who were unacquainted with Judaism, 
they rarely alluded to the Old Testament. 
Christ and the apostles regarded the divine re- 
velations as gradual, and the instruction given 
in the Old Testament as elementary, adapted to 
the state of society while yet in the infancy of 
improvement, and calculated to deepen the sense 
of the higher and more spiritual wants of the 
mind. Vide Introduction, s. 8, II. In this 
light is Judaism regarded by Paul, who com- 
pares the ritual of the former institute with a 
schoolmaster (rfcuSaycoyos) who is deserted by 
the children, as they approach towards manhood, 
Gal. iii. 24 ; iv. 1, 9. The books therefore con- 
taining the principles of the Jewish religion, 
taken by themselves, cannot be regarded as a 
principal source of our knowledge of the Chris- 
tian system, although they are of essential ser- 
vice, and indeed often indispensable. They 
are recommended in the New Testament to our 
careful study ; but always in connexion with 
Christian instructions. For we, as Christians, 
are no longer bound by many things which are 
commanded in the Old Testament; and must 
learn from Christian instructions what thpse 
things are, and why their obligation has ceased 

2. The books of the Old Testament may be 



76 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



used for various purposes, which differ very 
much, according to time and circumstances. 

(1) Usus polemicus or elencticus. The Old 
Testament may be employed to prove the truth 
and divinity of the Christian religion against 
Jews and infidels, From these ancient books 
we can shew that the Christian institute was 
promised and expected from the earliest times; 
and can correct many of the mistakes which 
have prevailed among the Jews and other 
nations. For this purpose they were used by 
Christ and his apostles, and sometimes in the 
instruction even of the heathen, but more fre- 
quently when Jews were to be convinced. We 
may see the different method in which they 
addressed Jews and heathen, by comparing the 
discourses of Paul contained in the Acts, and 
also his epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians, 
with those to the Thessalonians. 

When Christ wished to convince the Jews of 
the truth of his religion, and the divinity of his 
mission, he exhorted them to study their own 
scriptures, in which he was predicted. But al- 
though this advice of Christ was first given to 
the Jews, it must apply in full force to all who 
allow the authority of Christ, and acknowledge 
that the Old Testament contains predictions re- 
specting him. Christ thus addresses the Pha- 
risees, (John, v. 39,) 'EpawoVe (indicative, not 
imperative, as many suppose) ta$ ypa^aj, 6Vc 
vtxecs SoxscTft iv av-r'atj £iorjv aiwvtov t%£w x at 
ixslval siotv at fxap t vpov 6 av rC £ p I 
spoil, "Ye search the scriptures (of the Old 
Testament), because ye suppose that ye shall 
find in them the means of attaining salvation ; 
and these very scriptures testify of me — i. e., of 
the Messiah, the character which I sustain, and 
of the way of salvation through me." In 2 Tim. 
iii. 14 — 17, Paul distinctly states that Timothy 
(even as a Christian and Christian teacher, verse 
17) would find the Old Testament very useful 
in connexion with the Christian instruction 
which he had received (ver. 14), in acquainting 
himself with the way of salvation (ver. 15), in 
teaching this way to others (rfpoj lihatxaxlav, 
ver. 16), and in refuting the objections of the 
Jews and other enemies of Christianity, (rtpoj 
steYZov, ver. 16.) Cf. s. 8, II. 1. 2 Peter, i. 
19, "The predictions of the Old Testament 
respecting Christ, are now, since their fulfilment, 
much more certain than formerly ; and ye (con- 
verts from Judaism, who are accustomed to read 
the Jewish scriptures) will do well to attend to 
them." In this very connexion, however, Peter 
likens the Old Testament to a lantern, casting 
a feeble light, when compared with the day 
which had risen, since Christ had appeared, 
upon those who had embraced his religion. Cf. 
s. 8, II. 2. 

Note. — However imperfect the Jewish insti- 
tute may be in comparison with the Christian, 



it must not be despised or undervalued. Morns* 
p. 24, note. It was perfectly adapted to the age 
for which it was intended, and to the country 
where it was established, and could not have 
been different in any respect. It betrays a poor 
judgment to blame a teacher for not introducing 
into his book of elements everything which is 
found in a complete system, or for pursuing a 
different method in the instruction of little chil- 
dren and advanced scholars. This, so far from 
deserving blame, constitutes the highest merit 
of the teacher. The instructions given by God 
in the Old Testament are regarded in this light 
by Christ and the apostles, and are highly es- 
teemed as adapted to the age for which they 
were given. Vide s. 8, II. ad finem. 

(2) Usus dogmaticus and historicus. The Old 
Testament is of use in ascertaining the doctrines 
of Christianity, inasmuch as it is very full upon 
many doctrines presupposed in the New Testa- 
ment, and gives intimations on many doctrines 
on which the latter enlarges, (a) As the primi- 
tive Christians were for the most part native 
Jews, they were naturally supposed to have 
known from the Old Testament many of the 
most important truths of religion. Accordingly 
we find that the instructions given them in the 
New Testament respecting the nature, attri- 
butes, and providence of God, the creation of 
the world, and the fall ef man, are less full and 
explicit than those contained in the Old. (b) 
The Old Testament also contains traces, inti- 
mations, and, as it were, the germs of many 
doctrines which were afterwards followed out 
and developed by Christ and the apostles. 
This is exactly as it should be in a book of 
elementary instruction. The Old Testament 
pointed to the distant blessings which were 
promised. The passages of the Old Testament 
which treat of the Messiah, the life beyond the 
grave, and subjects of the same kind, are useful 
in shewing that these ideas have been brought 
to light and developed by Christ (usus histori- 
cus), and that all the divine revelations compose 
one complete system. 

The false opinions which were formerly en- 
tertained respecting the use of the Old Testa- 
ment and its relation to Christianity led many 
writers to attribute too many Christian ideas to 
the ancient Jewish prophets, and to carry back, 
without any distinction of time, all the light of 
the New Testament into the Old. That the 
light enjoyed under the former dispensation was 
inferior to that which Christians enjoy appears 
from the declarations of an apostle, 2 Peter, i. 
19, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 10, seq. Christ himself says, 
Matt. xi. 11, that among those who had been 
born of women there had not been a greater 
prophet than John, his precursor ; but that the 
least who enjoyed Christian instruction, and 
had kindled his torch by the Christian light, 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



77 



was better acquainted with the peculiar doctrines 
of the Christian religion than John. 

(3) Usus hermeneuticus. As Christ and the 
apostles were native Jews, and had their own 
countrymen for their first hearers, they con- 
formed, as far as they could consistently with 
duty, to the manners and opinions, to the mode 
of thought and expression, common among those 
with whom they were conversant. It is there- 
fore impossible for any one who is ignorant of 
this prevailing mode of thought and expression 
to understand fully their instructions. And this 
knowledge, which is so essential to the right 
understanding of the Christian doctrine, can be 
obtained only from the Old Testament. The 
service which it renders us in this respect is of 
the greatest importance. How many mistakes 
respecting the doctrines of faith, and how much 
confusion would have been avoided, if theo- 
logians had brought to the study of the Chris- 
tian scriptures a thorough acquaintance with the 
Old Testament ! 

(4) Usus moralis. The books of Moses, the 
Psalms, Proverbs, and other portions of the Old 
Testament, are full of precepts relating to the 
wise conduct of human life, and calculated to 
awaken religious and pious sentiments. Even 
the historical portions of the Old Testament are 
highly useful in this view, and should be em- 
ployed by religious teachers, and especially the 
teachers of youth, for the promotion of virtue 
arid piety, more than is commonly done. It was 
the manner of Moses, and of all the ancient Jew- 
ish teachers, to give instruction by means of 
history — a manner which is always interesting, 
and which was imitated by the first Christian 
teachers, who always built their instructions 
upon the history of the Old Testament and of 
Christ. 

Cautions to be observed in the use of the 
Old Testament for moral instruction. 

(a) All the precepts contained in the Old Tes- 
tament are not of universal obligation; some of 
them are applicable only to those living under 
the peculiar constitution of the Jewish nation. 
Christians commit a great mistake when they 
apply to themselves the promises of temporal 
good and the threatenings of temporal evil which 
are contained in the Old Testament, but which 
are valid only under a theocratical form of govern- 
ment. Christians can make application to them- 
selves of such only of these precepts as relate to 
all men in every age. By neglecting this distinc- 
tion, and applying to the present time what 
has long since ceased to be valid, the teacher of 
religion frequently dra'ws contempt upon him- 
self and his doctrine, and awakens unnecessary 
suspicion of the truth of what he utters. Every 
act of disobedience to the divine law will indeed 
be punished, and every act of obedience reward- 
ed* But that this will be visibly accomplished 



in the present life is nowhere taught in the 
Christian system, but rather the contrary. 
Temporal rewards and punishments are peculiar 
to a theocratic constitution, and ought not to 
be expected under a different divine dispensa- 
tion. 

(b) The rudeness of the early ages, and the 
degeneracy of the Jewish nation, called for a 
strictness of discipline from which Christianity 
has now released us. The spirit of Christianity 
is in many respects essentially different from 
that of Judaism. The latter terrified by punish- 
ments those who were too depraved to be in- 
fluenced by love ; the former teaches us to love 
God as our father and benefactor, and moves us 
by mildness and benevolence. Rom. viii. 15, 
"Ye (true Christians) have not received (by 
Christianity) a slavish spirit, leading you still 
(rtcaw, as Christians) to tremble before God; 
but ye have a filial, confiding disposition 
(7tv£vfia vlo$£6ias) produced in your minds by 
God, under the influence of which you can sup- 
plicate him in all circumstances as your beloved 
Father." Cf. Heb. xii. 18—24 ; Gal. iv. 1—4. 
When, therefore, as Christians, we obey any 
part of the law of Moses, or of the precepts of 
the Old Testament, we yield this obedience, not 
because it is required by the law of Moses or 
the Old Testament, but partly because it is com- 
manded by the universal moral law, and chiefly 
because it is commanded by Christ. For Christ 
did not come, as he himself said, to annul the 
moral law of the Old Testament, but to fulfil and 
enforce it, Matt. v. 17, seq. So depraved were 
the Jews at the time of Moses, and long after- 
wards, that he was compelled to proceed with 
them as a teacher does with ignorant, rude, and 
untractable pupils. The first measures which the 
teacher takes in the education of such pupils are, 
to separate them from others of the same charac- 
ter with themselves, to impose compulsatory re- 
straints, to awe them with threatenings, and to 
make to them such sensible representations as 
are most calculated to produce an effect. And 
these are the measures which Moses adopted 
Those for whom his institute was intended were, 
in a great measure, incapable of any higher re- 
ligious knowledge, which was not therefore 
given them, except in such obscure intimations 
as were proper in elementary instructions. 
Vide Introduction, s. 8, II. Cf. Gal. iv. 3 
Col. ii. 8, 20. Warburton, Divine Legation of 
Moses. 

(c) Christians ought not to adopt, without 
some limitation, the life and example of the per- 
sons described in the Old Testament, even of 
those there mentioned with approbation, as mo- 
dels for their own imitation ; for, in consequence 
of their better instruction, Christians are now in 
many respects far advanced beyond the best of 
former times. In those ages of ignorance man , v 

©& 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



things were allowed or palliated which, in this 
period of higher illumination and improvement, 
would be without excuse. Many events in the 
histories of David, Samson, and others, for 
which they might perhaps have been excul- 
pated, cannot be adopted by Christians as mo- 
dels for their imitation. These remarks are suf- 
ficient to shew the necessity of caution in the 
use of the characters of Old-Testament history, 
in recommending moral duties, and in popular 
instruction. Vide Joh. Aug. Wolf, Diss, duo 
de exemplis biblicis in theologia morali caute 
adhibendis, Lipsiae, 1786, 4to. Christian teach- 
ers would do well to follow in this respect the 
example of the writers of the New Testament. 
They never deal in indiscriminate praises and 
encomiums of the characters of the Old Testa- 
ment, but always select those parts of their ex- 
ample which are worthy of commendation, and 
of the imitation of Christians ; such as the piety 
and faith of Abraham, and. others mentioned, 
Heb. xi. 

SECTION XIII. 

OF THE READING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

f 

I. History of the Dispute respecting the Reading of 

the Bible. 

That the holy scriptures were less read by the 
the ancient Jews and primitive Christians than 
at the present day is beyond dispute. Books 
were formerly very rare and costly, and the read- 
ing public was extremely small. Even in 
Europe it was not so large by half, a century 
ago, as now. The great body of society, in for- 
mer times, had little taste for reading, or indeed 
ability, as a general thing, either to read or to 
write. They were not therefore required, by 
any precepts of the Bible, to read the scriptures 
themselves. This was made the duty of the 
teachers of religion, who were then required to 
read the scriptures before the people. Thus the 
sons of Levi were required to read the law of 
Moses in the hearing of the people, Deut. xxxi. 

II, 12 ; and Timothy was required to study the 
scriptures in order to qualify himself to teach 
others, 2 Tim. iii. 15. The passage, John, v. 
39, is also addressed to the teachers of religion. 
In consequence of the fact, that, in ancient times, 
the great body of mankind received instruction 
more by hearing than by their own reading, the 
learner was called djcpoaT^, and instruction, 
njnm:>, axor], Rom. x. 15. 

But, on the other hand, the common people 
and the ignorant are nowhere forbidden, in the 
Old or New Testament, to read the scriptures; 
but were rather encouraged to instruct them- 
selves by their own study of the Word of God, 
if they had sufficient leisure and ability. The 
letters of the apostles were addressed to the 



whole church, and were publicly read in the 
hearing of all, Col. iv. 16. Now, if the apostles 
did not fear any harm from having their epistles 
read in public, in the hearing of all, they could 
have no reason to apprehend danger from having 
them perused in private. The Jews also were 
always permitted the free use of their scriptures, 
cf. Acts, viii. 28 ; nor is there a passage in all 
the Old Testament in which this is prohibited. 
In the early Christian church, too, the reading 
of the Bible was universally allowed, and, in- 
deed, encouraged and facilitated by frequent 
versions. As early as the second century the 
Bible had been rendered into Syriac and Latin, 
and was accessible in these versions to as many 
as wished to own or study them. Hieronymus 
commends Pamphilus, " quod scripturas quoque 
sanctas, non ad legendum tantum, sed ad haben- 
dum tribuebat promptissime, non solum viris sed 
etiam feminis, quas vidisset lectioni deditas," 
Apol. I. Contra Ruffinum. Julian objected to 
Christians, " quod mulieres puerosque pateren- 
tur scripturas legere," Cyril. Alex. Contra Jul. 
VI. 9. Cyprian recommended the study of the 
Bible to Christians : » Scripturis inquamsacris 
incumbat christianus fidelis, et ibi inveniet 
condigna fidei spectacula," Cyprian, De Spec- 
tac. p. 342. From all this it appears, that at 
this period of the church the use of the holy 
scriptures was unincumbered. Vide Walch, 
Vom Gebrauch der heiligen Schrift unter den 
alten Christen, Leipzig, 1779, 8vo. 

At a later period the great decline of learn- 
ing commenced. And to such a point of dark- 
ness did western Europe arrive, that the whole 
learning of the clergy of the middle ages often 
consisted in their being able to read. In a state 
of things like this, the Bible was not, of course, 
much read by the laity, if, indeed, they were able 
to read at all. And as the Latin version was 
retained, although the Latin language had 
ceased to be vernacular after the seventh centu- 
ry, the common people became more and more 
ignorant of its contents. 

In the midst of this darkness the pope and 
clergy established many doctrines, which were 
as promotive of their own interests as they were 
contrary to the Bible. These innovations and 
errors were soon discovered and opposed by 
some of the more intelligent and inquisitive 
even among the laity. Hence, to take the Bible 
from their hands was the obvious policy of the 
clergy. Accordingly, Pope Gregory VII. , of 
the eleventh century, declared himself against 
the free and general use of the scriptures. But 
as many of the laity, who had obtained more 
enlightened views from the use of the Bible, 
opposed themselves to the designs of the pope, 
the prohibition was repeated by Innocent III., 
at the commencement of the thirteenth century. 
The use of the Bible was again forbidden the 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



79 



laity, on account of the Waldenses, by the 
council held at Toulouse, in the year 1229. 
" Prohibemus, ne libros V. T. aut N. laicis per- 
mittatur habere; nisi forte Psalterium vel Bre- 
viarium pro divinis officiis ac Horas Beatae Vir- 
ginis aliquis ex devotione habere velit; sed, ne 
nraeraissos libros habeant in vulgari translatione, 
irctissime inhibemus," Concilium Tolosanum, 
Can. XII. At a synod at Beziers, in the year 
1233, the laity were forbidden to possess any 
books of theology in the Latin language, and 
both clergy and laity to possess any in the ver- 
nacular. In the year 1338, John WicklifFwas 
declared a heretic by a synod at Oxford for pub- 
lishing an English translation of the Bible; and 
in the year 1408, the third synod at the same 
place ordained, " ne quis textum aliquem ex 
scriptura transferat in linguam Anglicanam, nisi 
a Dioecesano vel Concilio provinciali translatio 
approbata sit." 

Still there were many among the different 
sects, and some even of the catholic church, who 
read the Bible for themselves. And by com- 
paring the existing state of faith and practice 
with the Bible, they were soon convinced of 
the errors and corruptions of the church. At 
last, in the sixteenth century, Luther and the 
Swiss reformers appeared, and restored the free 
use of the Bible. Luther especially very much 
promoted the general circulation of the scrip- 
tures by his German translation, which was the 
principal means of the Reformation. The coun- 
cil at Trent did not now venture to renew the 
prohibition of the Bible, and undertook only to 
establish the Vulgate edition as alone authen- 
tic. But afterwards, Pope Pius IV. issued an 
Index librorum prohibitorum, in the preface to 
which he writes, " Cum experimento manifes- 
tum sit si sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim 
sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob ho- 
minum •temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitatis 
oriri ; hac in parte judicio Episcopi sive Inqui- 
sitoris stetur, ut cum consilio parochi vel Con- 
fessarii Bibliorum a catholicis auctoribus ver- 
sorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere 
possint, quos intellexerunt ex hujusmodi lec- 
tione non damnum, sed. fidei atque pietatis 
augmentum capere posse ; quam facultatem in 
scriptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facul- 
ty te ea legere sive habere prsesumserit, nisi prius 
Bibliis ordinario redditis, peccatorum absolu- 
tionem percipere non possit." But even this 
permission was afterwards limited by Clement 
VIII., who declared that by this indulgence of 
Pius IV., "nullam de novo tribui facultatem 
Episcopis vel Inquisitoribus aut Regularium 
Superioribus concedendi licentiam emendi, 
jegendi, aut retinendi Biblia, vulgari lingua 
edita, cum hactenus mandato et usu sanctas ro- 
inanac et universalis Inquisilionis sublata cisftterit 



faeultas concedendi hujusmodi licentiai. legendi 
vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria, aut alias, sanctse 
scripture tarn Novi quam Veteris Testamenti 
partes, quavis vulgari lingua editas ,• ac insuper 
summaria et compendia etiam historica eorun- 
dem Bibliorum, seu librorum sanctse scripturse, 
quocunque vulgari idiomate coiiscripta ,• quod qui- 
dem inviolate servandum est." And at last this 
permission was wholly withdrawn by Gregory 
XV., who says, " De plenitudine apostolicse po- 
testatis et ex certa scientia, ac matura delibera- 
tione revocamus, cassamus, et annullamus 
omnes et singulas licentias legendi et habendi 
biblios quoscunque prohibitos." 

It is injustice, however, to the catholic church, 
to suppose that this prohibition of the free and 
general use of the Bible was ever universally 
approved. There have always been theolo-* 
gians, especially in the Gallican church, who 
have advocated the lawfulness and necessity of 
the unlimited use of the scriptures. Paschasius 
Quesnel published at Paris, 1687, and Brussels, 
1702, a French translation of the New Testa- 
ment, (Le Nouveau Testament, avec des reflex- 
ions morales sur chaque verset,) from which 'a 
hundred and one propositions were extracted at 
the instigation of the Jesuits, and condemned by 
the pope in the bull Unigenitus, 1713. Among 
these propositions were the following : — "Lec- 
tio sacras scripturae est pro omnibus." " Ob- 
scuritas sancti verbi Dei non est Laicis ratio 
dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione." " Abri- 
pere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testa- 
mentum, sive eis illud clausum tenere, auferendo 
eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis Christi os 
obturbare." " Interdicere Christianis lectionem 
sacree scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est inter- 
dicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et facere ut pa- 
tiantur speciem quandam excommunicationis." 
It should be remarked, too, that the use of the 
Bible has never been prohibited without some 
limitation ,• so that it is not unfrequent in our 
day for the most distinguished theologians of 
the Romish church to advocate the general use 
of the scriptures ; while there are still many 
Jesuites, or Exjesuites, who hold to the prohi- 
bition of the Bible. Vide Hegelmeier, Ges- 
chichte des Bibelverbots, Ulm, 1783, 8vo. 

[Note. — The following passage from the his- 
torian Olaus Magnus, will shew on what pre- 
tences the court of Rome has sometimes pro- 
ceeded in forbidding the translation and circula- 
tion of the holy scriptures. " Gregorius VII., 
Vratislao (a Bohemian nobleman) scripsit (2 
Jan. 1080) ac prohibuit, ne, ut optavit, scriptura 
sancta verteretur in linguam vulgarem ; quoniain 
tarn secreta majestas in ea est, ut dirficulter 
translatae sensus secretorum Dei poterit in ea 
postmodum deprehendi ; immo nunquam devotior 
fleret populus, quando sciens facilitatem, in con- 



80 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



temp turn verteret, quod in reverentiaconsueverat 
admirari et jam in cerevisiaria taberna irrisorie 
decaatatur," Hist. Lib. XVI. c. 39. 

At the time of the Reformation, the Bible was 
translated by many catholic theologians, in order 
to prevent the use of the " heretical" Bible by 
the members of their communion. The New 
Testament was translated by Hieron. Emser, 
in 1527, and by J. Dietenberger, 1 in 1533; and 
the Vhole Bible by J. Eck, Casp. Uhlenberg, 
and others. 

The condemnation of the maxims of Father 
Quesnel by Clement XI. occasioned a contro- 
versy in the catholic church, which resulted in 
larger views respecting the use of the scriptures. 
These views were patronised by Benedict XIII., 
in the synod held at the palace of the Lateran, 
and afterwards more successfully by Maria The- 
resa and Joseph II., of Austria. 

Since the commencement of the present cen- 
tury, the Bible Society has found patrons in 
many distinguished members of the catholic 
church. The Archbishops of Mohileff and of 
Gnesne sanctioned a Polish version of the scrip- 
tures, and promoted its circulation in their dio- 
ceses; for which, however, they were severely 
reprimanded by Pius VII., in his brief of June 
29, 1816. Among the distinguished catholics 
who have made common cause with the protes- 
tants in the circulation of the Bible, in opposi- 
tion both to papal authority and the active jea- 
lousy of the Ultra-montanists, the names of Van 
Ess, Gossner, and De Sacy, deserve to be parti- 
cularly mentioned. In our own country, the 
" bishops of the church" are content with " ear- 
nestly cautioning the laity against the indiscri- 
minate use of the unauthorized and extremely 
defective and erroneous versions which are 
placed within their reach," and with recommend- 
ing "the Douay translation from the Vulgate of 
the Old Testament, and the Rhemish translation 
of the New Testament." Vide Pastoral Letter 
of the Prelates of the catholic church, Baltimore, 
1829. 

While these more liberal views are obtaining 
in the Romish church, it is worthy of remark 
that many protestant divines have so far desert- 
ed the principles of the Reformation as wholly 
to disapprove of the general reading of the 
Bible, or at least to allow it only under very 
narrow restrictions. Several bishops of the 
episcopal church, both in England and America, 
have publicly avowed their hostility to the Bible 
Society, pretending that its exertions menaced 
the safety of the established church. Vide 
Christian Observer, vol. xx. p. 28. The same 
hostility to the unrestricted use of the Bible has 
been manifested by several German theologians. 
Vide Lessing, Theol. Nachlass, Berlin, 1784. 
J. G. Becker, Tract, ad qu&stionem, utrum lec- 
tio literarum sacrae scripturae omnibus omnino 



Christianis, maxime imperitee multitudmi. valdi 
sit commendanda, Rostochii, 1793, 4to. v oigt- 
lander, Die Bibel kein Erbauungsbuch, in the 
Predigerjournal fur Sachsen, November, 1809. 
Voeckler, De eo, an bene actum sit, scripta Ve- 
teris et Novi Testament! omnia ac singula cum 
imperitorum multitudine communicandi, Lipsise, 
1823, 8vo. Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch des christ. 
Glaubens, Leipzig, 1828.] 

II. How may the Bible be best adapted to common 
use? 

It appears from the preceding historical sketch 
that religion has always suffered from the prohi- 
bition or restriction of the use of the scriptures ; 
and, on the contrary, has always gained from 
their free and unrestricted use. To establish 
this declaration, we need only appeal to the time 
of the Reformation. The most direct way to 
render Christianity obsolete is to take the Bible 
from the hands of the common people. And 
already have we begun to experience the evils 
resulting from the efforts of some modern teach- 
ers to banish the reading of the scriptures, espe- 
cially of the Old Testament, from our schools, 
or at least to diminish the degree of attention 
formerly paid to them. 

But however useful the simple perusal of the 
scriptures in the common method may be to 
common people of no education, it may doubt- 
less be rendered in different ways more useful 
and less objectionable. The following are the 
principal methods adopted to promote the gene- 
ral utility of the Bible : — 

1. New translations. Before the perusal of 
the scriptures can be instructive and edifying to 
the common people, they must be able to obtain 
clear and definite conceptions of what they read; 
and they can do this only by means of good and 
intelligible translations. It were, indeed, desir- 
able that the established version, which has a 
classical authority with the great body of society, 
should be gradually improved, if circumstances 
were such as to allow this to be done. Consi- 
dering the period at which this version was 
made, it is a masterpiece in its kind, and is in 
many respects worthy of the study and imitation 
of the modern translator. But since that period 
we have made great advances in the art of inter- 
pretation, and have many exegetical helps, which 
were not then enjoyed. Our language, too, has 
undergone great alterations since this translation 
was written ; and many of the words and phrases 
which are used in it, and which were then com- 
mon, are now obsolete and unintelligible; but 
the period has not yet arrived, either for intro 
ducing a new version into the protestant church 
or for making considerable improvements in tht 
one now established. Indeed, to attempt thi. 
at the present crisis of the affairs of religion, anc 
while opposing sects are inflamed with such . 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



81 



zeal against each other, would be extremely dan- 
gerous. In these circumstances we could hardly 
expect that any one plan of improvement would 
gain the assent of all parties. Since, therefore, 
neither a new version can at present be author- 
ized, nor any considerable improvements be 
made in the old, we can do nothing better to 
excite the interest and enlist the feelings of the 
common people in the reading of the Bible, than 
to recommend to them new translations and 
practical expositions, to be used in connexion 
with the established version. 

2. Allegorical interpretation and compends. 
Every part of the Bible was not intended for all 
ages or for all classes of readers. Considerable 
portions both of the Old and New Testaments 
have no immediate connexion with the Christian 
religion and the truths of salvation, and contri- 
bute little to the instruction and edification of 
believers, and are therefore of service merely to 
the scholar. Vide s. 12. In order now to ren- 
der the reading of the scriptures truly profitable 
to common people, and to save them from wast- 
ing their time upon subjects which lie beyond 
their sphere, and from which they can derive no 
profit, their attention should be directed to such 
passages as exhibit the great truths of Christian 
faith and practice, and especially to the instruc- 
tive narratives of the Bible. The inconveni- 
ences resulting to the greater portion of readers 
from the indiscriminate and unaided perusal 
of the Bible, and the necessity of doing some- 
thing to adapt it better to their spiritual profit, 
have been for a long time perceived and felt ; 
and, accordingly, two methods have been taken 
to obviate these inconveniences, and to render 
the perusal of the Bible more useful to common 
readers. 

(a) A mystical and allegorical mode of inter- 
pretation has been applied to the historical parts 
of the Old Testament, and to other parts of the 
Bible, which have no immediate bearing on the 
doctrines of salvation, or the moral improvement 
of men ; and in this way a new sense has been 
ascribed to these passages better calculated to 
instruct and edify. This method was formerly 
adopted by Philo and other Jews, who were fol- 
lowed in this respect by many of the Christian 
fathers, especially by Clemens of Alexandria, 
Origen, and others of the Egyptian church. 
This method has also been adopted in modern 
times. It has doubtless been the means of good 
in some former periods, and to certain classes of 
readers ; but it involves so many inconveniences, 
and gives occasion to so many errors, that the 
revival of it at the present day can hardly seem 
desirable. It has lately, however, though under 
the different name of moral interpretation, re- 
ceived the sanction of Kant. Vide Nosselt, 
Progr. Animadversiones in sensum sacrorum 
librorum moralem, Halle, 1795. 
11 



[Note. — Those who apply this mode of inter- 
pretation suppose that every passage of the Bible 
contains a concealed, spiritual, and higher sense, 
either in connexion with or under its literal and 
grammatical sense; and that the Holy Ghost 
thus gave two or more senses to the words 
which he inspired. The catholic church held 
to a fourfold sense of the Bible — viz., (1) gram- 
maticus, (2) mysticus, subdivided into (a) 
tropologicus, s. moralis (1 Cor. ix. 8, seq.), (6) 
allegoricus (Gal. iv. 21, seq.), (c) anagogicus. 
This theory of catholic hermeneutics was ex- 
pressed in the following distich : — 

Litem gesta docet; quid credas, allegoria; 
Moralis, quid agas ; quid speres, anagogia. 

Tirinus, a Jesuit, thus writes :— " Sub unis, 
iisdemque sacra? scripturae verbis, praster sensum 
literalem, primario a spiritu sancto intentum, 
latere subinde etiam alium, sensum mysticum 
sive spiritualem, secundario a spiritu sancto in- 
tentum, patet ex John, iii. 14, ubi per exalta- 
tionem serpentis Mosaici, Christus suam cruci- 
fixionem ; ex Matt. xii. 20, ubi per occultationem 
Jonas in ventre cell, suam sepulturam desig- 
nat," &c. 

In opposition to this, Sam. Maresius, of the 
reformed church, writes — " Absit a nobis ut 
Deum faciamus bly'honi'tov, aut multiplices sen- 
sus affingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius, tam- 
quam in speculo limpidissimo, sui autoris sim- 
plicitatem contemplari debemus, Ps. xii. 6 ; xix. 
8. Unicus ergo sensus scripturae nempe gram- 
maticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demum 
terminis, vel propriis vel tropicis et figuratis ex- 
primatur. Sed cum res illo sensu grammatico 
expressae, (sunt enim verba rerum imagines) 
saepe sint typicae, hinc fit, ut sensus ille unicus 
et simplex debeat extendi non solum ad typum, 
sed etiam adprototypum,cui prasfigurando typus 
ille a Deo destinatur ; quo spectant pleraque ex- 
empla hie Tirino citata, et in quibus sensum 
hactenus mysticum agnoscimus, quatenus res 
ipsae mysticam habuerunt significationem." 

Such was the opinion of the reformers, and 
of most of the older evangelical theologians; 
but Musaeus, Calovius, Quenstedt, Hollaz, Car- 
povius, Mosheim, and others, contended for a 
mystical sense, besides the literal sense disco- 
vered and determined by the usus loquendi and 
the context. By this mystical sense they meant, 
however, only a spiritual application of the lite- 
ral sense. On the contrary, Baier, Buddeus, 
Baumgarten, and others, maintained that this 
spiritual, hidden, second, remote, sense of the 
scriptures was the one intended by the Holy 
Spirit. In later times, Dr. Olshausen distin- 
guishes between the literal sense of the Bible 
and a deeper sense (vrtovoia, Untersinn), which 
he calls spiritual. Vide Olshausen, Ein Wort 
iiber tiefern Schriftsinn, Konigsberg, 18:34, 8vo. 



82 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens, 
Leipzig, 1828.] 

(6) Another means of rendering- the Bible 
more useful to all classes of people — a means 
far better than the former, and more adapted to 
the present time, is that of making compends, 
containing the most important, instructive, and 
practical portions of the scriptures. The idea 
of making extracts from the Bible is not of re- 
cent origin. Soon after the Babylonian exile, 
the Jews made selections from the various his- 
torical works of their prophets. The books of 
Kings, Chronicles, &c, are compends, com- 
posed from larger historical works therein 
named. Compends of the same kind were early 
attempted among Christians. According to 
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26, Melito of Sardis, 
in the third century, composed a Synopsis Vete- 
yis Testamenti, which, however, is now lost. 
And we learn from a catalogue of the writings 
of Augustine, given by Possidonius, an African 
bishop of the fifth century, and a disciple of 
Augustine, that he also made a selection of such 
portions of the Old Testament as were interest- 
ing and instructive to Christians, to which he 
gives the title of Speculum. 

These compends of the scriptures may be 
constructed on different plans, according to the 
various ends for which they are composed. 
But we are speaking here of that kind only 
which is intended for the instruction and edifi- 
cation of the common people and of the young. 
During the last twenty or thirty years many 
compends of this nature have been composed in 
the protestant church. Some theologians of 
that party which would banish from religion 
everything positive have made use of this method, 
in order to give a direction to the religious in- 
struction of the common people and of the young, 
conformably to their own maxims. They have 
selected such portions only of the Bible as incul- 
cate the truths of natural religion, or exhibit the 
the general precepts of morality, and have either 
wholly omitted or very slightly noticed the posi- 
tive doctrines of the Christian faith. Many of 
them have gone so far as to insist that such com- 
pends should be used in the schools instead of 
the Bible, and have boldly declared that they 
might be made gradually to supersede wholly 



the original scriptures ; as in very many cases 
the extracts made from a work have led to an 
entire neglect of the original from which they 
were taken. 

If we consider these abuses, and the present 
very doubtful tendency of this method, we can- 
not deny that there are weighty objections to 
the regular use of compends of the Bible in po- 
pular religious instruction. Indeed, Eichhorn 
(Bibl. der bibl. Lit. Th. I. s. 828, f.) and 
many other neologists have declared themselves 
against this method. 

If, however, these compends are properly 
constructed and rightly used they may be very 
useful. In order to avoid the mistakes just men- 
tioned, and to answer the ends for which these 
selections should be designed, they should be 
composed in view of the following considera- 
tions : (1) Theauthorof the compendium and the 
teachers who use it must carefully guard against 
the appearance of undervaluing the Bible itself, 
or of wishing to supersede it by their selections. 
(2) They must rather labour to prepare those 
whom they teach by means of these extracts to 
read the Bible itself with understanding and 
profit. In short, a compend of the Bible should 
be made a practical introduction to the Bible 
itself, and should be calculated to awaken the 
desire of reading the original from which it is 
taken. (4) The historical portions of the Bible 
should be carefully retained, and the attention 
of the reader should be directed to their practi- 
cal use. (5) The author should especially la- 
bour to render everything clear and intelligible, 
preserving, however, as far as may be, the lan- 
guage of the Bible itself, and indeed, for the 
most part, that of the authorized version, to 
which the readers have been accustomed from 
their youth. Cf. Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk 
der gottlichen Weisheit, Th. II. s. 737. Some 
of the best compends are those of Trinius, 
Bahrdt, Seller, Hufnagel, Schneider, Treumann, 
Risler, and others mentioned in Noesselt's Bu- 
cherkenntniss. One of the latest compends is 
that of Zerrenner, which, however, does not 
answer all the conditions above stated. The 
student will find a number of essays for and 
against compends of the Bible in some of the 
volumes of the Predigerjournal. 



BOOK I 



DOCTRINE OF GOD 



(83) 



This Book comprises what may be called theology in the strict sense of the 
term. The several doctrines belonging to it will be considered in the following 
order : — 

PART I. 

OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

1. Of the existence and the notion of God Art. II. 

2. Of the nature and attributes of God Art. III. 

3. Of the doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost Art. IV. 

PART II. 

OF THE WORKS OF GOD. 

1. Of the creation of the world : 

(a) The creation of the world in general, and of the earth . . Art. V. 

(b) The creation, and original condition of man Art. VI. 

(c) The doctrine of angels Art. VII. 

2. Of Divine Providence and the preservation of the world .... Art. VIII. 



(84) 



BOOK L 



DOCTRINE OF GOD 



PART I.— NA1JRE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



ARTICLE II. 

OF THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD. 

SECTION XIV. 

OF THE NOTION OF GOD. 

I. Can God be defined? 

this question, which was 
frequently asked by the 
schoolmen, some writers 
have returned a negative 
answer, for the reason that 
no definition can perfectly 
exhaust the idea in ques- 
tion. And if the definition of a thing 
must necessarily contain a complete de- 
scription of its whole nature and all 
its attributes, a definition of God is 
indeed impossible. But all which is 
necessary in a definition is, that it should give 
us so many of the characteristics of the thing de- 
fined as to enable us to distinguish it from all 
other things. And in this sense God can cer- 
tainly be defined. 

II. What is the best definition of God ? 

The difference between the various defini- 
tions which philosophers have given of God is, 
for the most part, merely verbal. Some of the 
metaphysical definitions are obscure and other- 
wise objectionable. This is the case with the 
definition given by Wolf: "God is a self-ex- 
istent being, in whom the ground of the reality 
of the world is to be found," or, " God is a 
being who has the ground of his existence in 
nimself." Others define God to be an inde- 
pendent being, or an independent spirit, or an 
infinite, necessary, eternal being. By these 
definitions, which enumerate particular divine 
attributes, God is distinguished from all other 




beings. As a general thing, all the divine at- 
tributes may be derived by inference from any 
one ; which may, therefore, be made the ground 
of the definition of the Divine Being. This 
was done by the ancient philosophers, who de- 
fined God to be Ttdvtcov alttov, to bvtas ov, oiiffia 
dtSioj, dJ^avatos, avtdpxrj^ x, 1. %. 

But the best definition of God — the one in 
which all the others are comprehended — is the 
following : God is the most perfect being, and is 
the cause of all other beings, (a) The first 
clause of this definition is comprehensive of all 
the particular attributes by which God is dis- 
tinguished from other beings, such as eternity, 
necessity, independence, freedom, and perfec- 
tion of will, &c. This definition may be ex- 
pressed in more popular and scriptural lan- 
guage, by saying, God is the Supreme Being, 
the Most High (ytyotoi), exalted over all, to 
whom none can be compared, (b) The second 
clause of this definition is added, because the 
contemplation of all other beings, the aggregate 
of which is the world, facilitates the knowledge 
of this most perfect being by rendering it obvi- 
ous that no other beings possess all the perfec- 
tions which are united in him. In this view, 
God is regarded not only as he is in himself, 
but also in relation to other existing things. 
But Kant has pronounced this definition of God, 
and all the common definitions, defective, be- 
cause they make no express mention of moral 
perfection, which, in the description of a being 
' like God, should be far more prominent than 
1 mere metaphysical perfection. He would there- 
fore connect with the idea of the most perfect 
being that of a free being, provided with a pure 
moral will. But the latter idea being implied 
in the former does not require to be expressly 
mentioned in a general definition. 

But the first clause of the definition above 
given, however intelligible it may be to the 
learned, who are accustomed to abstract idea*?, 
is too transcendental and metaphysical for an- 
il (85) 



86 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



educated people. And as the principal part of our 
knowledge of God is derived from the contem- 
plation of the natural world, and the conclusions 
to which we arrive from this contemplation ; the 
second clause of this definition will be far more 
generally intelligible than the first. In popular 
instruction we should therefore define God to be 
the creator, preserver, and governor of all things ; 
for we always conceive of God principally in 
relation to ourselves and the world around us, 
and without the contemplation of the world we 
should not have come to the knowledge of God 
as the most perfect being; so that the first part 
of the definition is a consequence of the last. 

This is the light in which God is presented 
to us in the Bible, Gen. i. 1 ; Jer. x. 10 — 16; 
Amos, v. 8; Acts, xvii. 24, coll. Psalm clxvi. 
6 ; Isa. xlii. 5 ; xlv. 6, seq. ; Matt. xi. 25. Vide 
Moms, p. 44. And this, too, is the view of God 
which is most calculated to inspire the minds 
of men with reverence for his character, which 
is the great object of all religious instruction. 
Vide Morus, pages 43, 44. 

SECTION XV. 

OF THE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE. 

I. Statement of the Proofs of the Existence of God. 

The belief in the divine existence is always 
presupposed in the Bible, and the truth of this 
belief is not, therefore, formally proved, although 
it is supported by many convincing arguments, 
Rom. i. 19. On this account Baier and some 
other theologians contended that the divine ex- 
istence should be presupposed in Christian theo- 
logy, and that the proofs of it should be wholly 
omitted ; and it must be confessed that the full 
and scientific statement of these proofs belongs 
rather to metaphysics and natural theology than 
here. The proofs of the divine existence may 
be divided into two principal classes. 

1. Proofs a priori. The most celebrated of 
these is that derived from the idea of the most 
perfect being, and called the ontological or Carte- 
sian proof. It was first used by Anselmus, and 
often repeated by the schoolmen who succeeded 
him, and only renewed by Des Cartes. It was 
afterwards improved by Leibnitz, Wolf, and 
Baumgarten. It may be briefly stated thus : 
The most perfect being is possible, and therefore 
actually exists ,-for existence is a reality or perfec- 
tion, and necessary existence is the highest perfec- 
tion. Consequently necessary existence must be 
predicated of the most perfect being. The vali- 
dity of this argument was disputed by the monk 
Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselmus, and by 
many others in succeeding ages. In modern 
times it has at last been proved by Kant to be 
entirely futile. The mere supposableness or 
logical possibility of a perfect being is no proof 



of the objective or real possibility of such a 
being; and existence cannot be inferred from a 
mere idea. This proof a priori entirely sur- 
passes the comprehension of common minds. 

2. Proofs a posteriori, or from experience. 

(a) From the contingency of the world. We 
perceive a constant motion and change in the 
objects around us, from which we conclude that 
they are contingent. These contingent things 
must have some ground for their existence and 
change extrinsic to themselves. And this 
ground must be a necessary being, one who has 
the ground of his existence in himself; and this 
being is God. Otherwise we must make the 
absurd supposition that effects exist without 
their causes, or that there is an infinite series of 
contingent causes (progressum causarum in infi- 
nitum), which is equally absurd. This proof, 
when stated in connexion with others, and espe- 
cially with the moral proof, is well calculated 
to produce conviction. The Bible frequently 
contrasts the eternity and immutability of God 
with the perishable nature of the material world, 
Psalm xc. ; cii. 26—28 ; Heb. i. 10, seq. And 
this proof, when exhibited in this way, is highly 
adapted to produce impression even on the com- 
mon mind. [It is commonly called the cosmolo- 
gical proof.] 

Note. This argument, in its scientific form 
and development, has been ascribed by many, 
from their ignorance of ancient philosophy, to 
Thomas Aquinas. It was used, however, by 
Carneades in opposition to the stoics, who 
ascribed divinity to the world ; according to the 
testimony of Cicero, De Natura Deor. III. 12. 
It was also used by many of the ecclesiastical 
fathers. Vide Petavius, Dogm. Theol. I. i. 
c. 2. 

(5) The proofs from final causes. These may 
be stated in a very popular and intelligible man- 
ner, and are therefore best adapted to the instruc- 
tion of the common people and of the young. 
They are called by the schoolmen argumenta 
physica. In these, however, the proof from the 
contingency of the world is presupposed. The 
argument stands thus : If the things of the 
world stand connected as means and ends, and 
follow one after another in this relation, they 
must be ordered by an intelligence, a being of 
reason and supreme wisdom. Now the things 
of the world are found actually to exist in this 
relation and order, so that we are compelled to 
believe that the world has sprung from an intel- 
ligent author. 

The full evidence of this conclusion depends 
upon the following particulars. (1) The world 
exhibits the most astonishing marks of order, 
perfection, and design. Although we are unable 
to survey the boundless extent of the universe,- 
we find abundant proof of this in the animate 
and inanimate creation which surrounds us. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



87 



(2) The order and design exhibited in the world 
are not the effect of blind chance. This cannot 
he supposed without contradicting the most fun- 
damental principles of the human mind. (3) 
This order, so observable in the material crea- 
tion, is contingent. We may be very easily 
satisfied that it does not result from anything 
existing in the world itself. From all this we 
conclude that the order exhibited in the material 
world must have a ground beyond the world 
itself; and that the author of the visible creation 
must be an intelligent being, who proposes to 
himself certain ends to be attained in the produc- 
tion and wise arrangement of contingent things. 

The science by which we attain the know- 
ledge of the existence and attributes of the Di- 
vine Being from the wisdom displayed in the 
constitution of the natural world, is called phy- 
sico-tkeology ,- and that which develops the ends 
or final causes of this constitution, teleology. 
[Hence this proof of the divine existence is com- 
monly called the physico-theological or teleolo- 
gical. 

This argument, so well adapted to common 
apprehension, was employed more frequently 
than any other by the ancient writers. Cf. 
Xenophon, Memorabilia, I. 4. IV. 3. Plato, 
De Legg. X. 68. XII. 229. Galen, De usu 
partium. Philebus, 244. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 
II. 2, 38, seq. Quaest. Tusc. I. 28, 29. It was 
likewise often employed by the Christian fa- 
thers. Vide Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 23. 
Gregory of Nyssa, De opificio hominis. Lac- 
tantius, De opificio hominis. Theophilus, Ad 
Autolychum, I. 23. Cf. Athanasius, John of 
Damascus, and others. The best modern 
writers on the general subject of physico-theo- 
logy are, Fenelon, Van Nieuwentyt, Derham, 
Wolf, Scheuchzer, Bonnet, and Sander. Par- 
ticular branches of physico-theology have also 
been frequently laboured in modern times. 
Cf. Frabicius, Hydrotheologie. Lesser, Litho- 
theologie. Derham, Astrotheologie. Bode, An- 
leitung zur Kenntniss des gesternten Himmels. 
Reimarus, Ueber die Triebe derThiere. Lesser, 
Insektotheologie, &c. This general argument 
is often exhibited in the holy scriptures. Vide 
Ps. viii. xix. civ. ; Is. xl. 21 — 26 ; Job, xxxvii. 
xli. ; Matt. vi. 25, seq. ; Acts, xiv. 15, seq. xvii. 
24—28; Rom. i. 19. 

(c) The moral argument, lately elucidated by 
Kant. Vide No. II. 

(d) The historical proof, drawn from the 
agreement of all, even the most uncultivated 
nations, in the belief of the divine existence. 
Against this proof it has been objected, (1) that 
the fact of this agreement could not be satisfac- 
torily proved from history ; vide Introduction, 
s. 4 ; (2) that this agreement, even if it could 
be satisfactorily established, would not prove 
this belief to be true : since many acknowledged 



errors and superstitions have been universally 
believed. But notwithstanding these objec- 
tions, this almost universal agreement of men 
with regard to the divine existence must be ac- 
knowledged to furnish an argument of some 
weight. It shews that the common sense of 
mankind, on a little reflection, leads to the idea 
of God, and that the conclusion from these ef- 
fects to such a cause is very obvious and natu- 
ral to the human mind. Acts, xvii. 27. It 
should be here remarked, however, that the be- 
lief of the divine existence precedes the know- 
ledge of any theoretic proof of it. Vide Intro- 
duction, s. 4, and infra No. II. 

[This argument was used by the ancient phi- 
losophers, llavrfj du£pco7toc rtspt ^uv X%ovoiv 
V7i6%7j-it.v, Aristotle, De Caelo, I. 3. "Arta,vtz$ 
av^pwrtot 6%thbv "J&bqves ts xal j3ap,3apot, vofxi,- 
L,ovaLv thai to ^rzlov, Sextus Empiricus, Adv. 
Mathem. I. 8. The same writer mentions as 
one of four proofs of the divine existence, rj 
Tiapa Ttasiv ar^pwrtocj (n' 1 u<J>covf.'a, Adv. Mathem. 
IX. 60. 'Ey |3apj3apots orSet'j l6ti xhv ^top ayvouiVj 
Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. 38. Cf. Cicero, De 
Nat. Deor. I. 17, 23. Seneca, Epist. 117. 

(e) The proof of the divine existence from 
miracles. The miracles recorded in the Old and 
New Testaments must have afforded to those 
who saw them irresistible proof of the existence 
and perfections of God, They were accordingly 
employed by Moses, and the other ancient pro- 
phets, to convince the Jews and Egpytians not 
only that God existed, but that Jehovah was 
the only true and the almighty sovereign of the 
universe. And these miracles are calculated to 
produce the same conviction in us, although we 
have not seen them with our own eyes, if we 
believe the truth of the Bible in which they are 
recorded. Vide Storr and Flatt, Elements of 
Biblical Theology, vol. i. p. 309, of the trans- 
lation. 

II. Observations on the Use of the Proof of the 
Divine Existence. 

1. The proofs of the divine existence have 
been the subject of much controversy among 
the philosophers of modern times. Kant has 
endeavoured to shew, in his Kritik der reinen 
Vernunft, der Urtheilskraft, and other works, 
that all the theoretic proofs of the divine exist- 
ence are imperfect, and that we do not hold the 
notion of God to be true on the ground of spe- 
culative reason, but because it perfectly agrees 
with the principles of our moral nature. And 
he would therefore have our belief in the exist- 
ence of God to depend solely upon the moral 
proof, which may be briefly stated as follows :— 
There is a moral order of things in the world, — 
all things are connected together as means for 
the attainment of moral ends. To this moral 
order we ourselves belong, as we learn from th 



88 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



moral feeling which we all possess, and which 
is exerted in the conscience. Now we are led 
by our practical reason to conclude, that there 
exists some cause, by which alone this order 
could be established — i. e., that there is a God. 
Vide Jacobi, Priifung der Mendelssohn'schen 
Morgenstunden, oder aller speculativen Be- 
weise fur das Daseyn Gottes, Leipzig 1 , 1786, 
8vo. Cf. Jacobi, Ueber den moralischen Be- 
weis vom Daseyn Gottes, Libau, 1791, 8vo. 

[This argument will be placed in a clearer 
light by the following passage from Kant him- 
self. "The highest good of man consists of 
two parts, the greatest possible morality and 
happiness. The former is the demand of his 
spiritual, the latter of his animal nature. The 
former only, his morality, is within his own 
power; and while, by persevering virtue, he 
makes this his personal character, he is often 
compelled to sacrifice his happiness. But since 
the desire of happiness is neither irrational nor 
unnatural, he justly concludes, either that there 
is a supreme being who will so guide the course 
of things (the natural world not of itself subject 
to moral laws) as to render his holiness and 
happiness equal, or that the dictates of his con- 
science are unjust and irrational. But the lat- 
ter supposition is morally impossible ; and he is 
compelled, therefore, to receive the former as 
true." Kritik der reinen Vernunft, s. 620, f.] 

2. An impartial examination of this contro- 
versy leads us to the following general re- 
sult: — 

(a) The metaphysical proofs of the divine 
existence are imperfect, as well as all proofs of 
this nature, to whatever subject they may relate. 
But they are not requisite for the establishment 
of our faith. If we should begin with the prin- 
ciple of believing only what we could prove on 
speculative grounds, we should end with doubt- 
ing many of the most established truths, and our 
own existence among the rest. The demonstra- 
tion which Spinoza has given of pantheism is 
inconclusive, because it is founded on merely 
speculative grounds, as Kant has shewn beyond 
all dispute. The person who hopes to attain to 
certainty in the way of metaphysical speculation, 
will be disappointed, and will fall into the depths 
of cheerless scepticism. 

(b) It is an established fact, that all who be- 
lieve in the divine existence, are convinced of it 
before they come to the knowledge of any theo- 
retic argument by which it might be proved. 
Men in general admit the idea of God to be true, 
because it perfectly agrees with the principles 
of their moral nature, and is demanded by these 
principles ; and not because it is proved by spe- 
culative reason. Vide Introduction, s. 4. 

(c) This moral proof is therefore very true 
and just ; and we shall do well if we search for 
the grounds of it in our own minds, in order to 



establish our own personal conviction. This 
proof should likewise be used, divested however 
of technical language, in popular instruction; 
for so it is actually employed in the holy scrip- 
tures. 

(d) As soon, however, as the speculative rea- 
son is awakened, and in some measure culti- 
vated, the mind, agreeably to its nature and its 
usual course, searches for the theoretic proofs 
of the same truths with which it had become 
previously acquainted from practical reason. 
But the man deceives himself who supposes that 
these theoretic proofs alone would have ever led 
him to conviction. They are not, however, by 
any means to be rejected ; since they result di- 
rectly from the very constitution of the specula- 
tive reason, and serve to confirm our belief in 
truths which were before made known to us in 
another way. If with these views we find im- 
perfection and inconclusiveness in these theoretic 
proofs, we shall not be wavered in our faith, 
knowing that it depends upon other grounds 
than these. In connexion, therefore, with the 
moral proof, the physico-theological and teleolo- 
gical should also be used. What God, the au- 
thor of our nature, has joined together in the 
very constitution which he has given us, let not 
the philosopher or religious teacher put asunder. 

3. The use to be made of these remarks in 
popular instruction. If the human mind comes 
to the knowledge of God in the manner just 
described, we must conform ourselves in our in- 
structions to this natural progress, if we would 
compass our object. In so doing, we shall fol- 
low the example of the sacred writers, who al- 
ways proceed in this way. We must accord- 
ingly inculcate upon our hearers the truth, that 
the conscience of man is the ground of all our 
knowledge of God, and the source of all true 
religion. Every man has a law within his own 
bosom, by which he judges his feelings, actions, 
and his whole moral character. This law com- 
mands his obedience so imperatively, that he is 
compelled to regard it as the standard, to which 
alone his conduct must be brought, and where 
it must be tried independently of human opi- 
nions. And he acquits or condemns himself, 
according to this law, as if he stood before a ju- 
dicial tribunal, Rom. ii. 12 — 16; Acts, xvii. 
27—31 ; Rom. i. 19, 20, 32 ; Cf. Introduction, 
s. 4. Now when a person acknowledges this 
law, he at the same time acknowledges, that 
there is an invisible lawgiver and judge, who 
annexes rewards to what is morally good, and 
punishment to what is morally evil, to whom 
therefore homage and obedience is due from us 
his subjects. Vide loc. sup. cit. In this way 
does man come to the knowledge of a moral 
order of things, to which 'he himself is conscious 
of belonging in the nobler portion of his nature, 
and from which he cannot but infer the exist 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



Vi 



*nce of a cause upon which this order de- 
pends — i. e., of a free and moral being. In 
short, the conscience of man distinctly utters the 
voice of an invisible and supreme judge of our 
thoughts and actions. 

Bat we do not stop at this point. Though 
this judge of our hearts is invisible, he is yet the 
object of our knowledge. His existence is made 
known to us by his works, which we see with 
our eyes, and perceive by all our bodily senses, 
(yoovptva, xa^opdrai, Rom. i. 20 ;) for as long as 
the world exists (arto xiL<$va$ xoo/xov) we may 
find proof of the divine existence, and revelation 
of the divine attributes, in the works of his hand. 
Here, then, according to the example of the sa- 
cred writers, we may introduce the proofs from 
the contingency of the world, and the marks of 
design which it exhibits, in all their force. 

If we impart religious instruction in this man- 
ner, we shall proceed both psychologically and 
scripturally ; for conscience within, and nature 
without us, furnish a twofold source of the know- 
ledge of God. But if we follow the example of 
the Bible, we shall connect with these truths, 
derived immediately from the human conscience, 
the more peculiar doctrines of the Christian 
system ; such, for example, as the doctrine that 
Christ will, at a future day, sit in judgment upon 
all the actions of our lives, Rom. ii. 16. It fol- 
lows from the views here expressed, that we 
should begin to instruct children in the know- 
ledge of God at a very early period; as soon, 
indeed, as they shew the movings of moral feel- 
ing, or begin to reflect upon the things which 
surround them, or to reason from effect to cause. 

Vide Jacobi, Leichter und iiberzeugender Be- 
weis von Gott, und von der Wahrheit der christ- 
lichen Religion ; also, Versuch eines Beweises 
eines in der menschlichen Seele von Natur 
iiegenden Eindrucks von Gott, und einem Leben 
nach dem Tode. 

III. Of Atheism. 

The error of those who deny the existence of 
God is called atheism. Atheists are such either 
theoretically or practically. Practical atheists 
are those who derive the motives of their con- 
duct from the denial of the divine existence. In 
the common sense, however, they are those who, 
while they profess religion, live in reality like 
atheists. It is of such that the Bible speaks, 
Psa. xiv. 1 ; Ephes. ii. 12. But we shall here 
treat only of theoretic atheism. Some have de- 
nied that theoretic atheism is possible. This 
opinion, so contradictory to all experience and 
history, is generally entertained by those who 
believe in innate ideas, or who would prove the 
existence of God from the common consent of 
all mankind ; but notwithstanding this opinion, 
there have always been those who have denied 
the being of God. Seme, like Sextus the Em- 
12 



piric, and Hume, are sceptical atheists, and con- 
sider the evidence against the divine existence 
as equivalent to that in its favour, and therefore 
leave the question undecided. Others are de- 
cided, dogmatical atheists, and think the argu- 
ments against the divine existence prepon- 
derate. 

But we must here notice a species of atheism 
which is more refined, and which has been bet- 
ter received, than any other. God, as w r e con- 
ceive of him, is the most perfect being distinct 
from the world which is dependent on him. 
Whoever, therefore, believes that the world 
itself, or any part or power of it, is God, is an 
atheist. But there have always been some phi- 
losophers who have held that the world itself, 
or that the air or fire, or some other portion, or 
that the power of motion, (which was the opi- 
nion of many of the Stoics and Epicureans), 
was God himself. But this atheism was for 
the first time thoroughly systematized by Bene- 
dict Spinoza, in his Ethics, published among 
his posthumous works in 1677. According to 
him, there is but one substance, which, however, 
is variously modified. It has two principal at- 
tributes, infinite extension (matter) and infinite 
thought (intelligence.) Spinoza speaks indeed 
of God; his God, however,' is not personally 
distinguished from the world, but is the uni- 
verse itself, to 7tdv. Hence the name of «*.*.- 
theism, which is given to his system. He l^ 
commonly supposed to have derived his views 
from Xenophanes of Colophon, and from Parme- 
nides and Zeno of Elea. Pie did not, however, 
agree so well with the principles of that school 
as with the ideas of the system of emanation, 
which he enlarged, refined, and adapted to his 
own theory. The weakness and inconclusive- 
ness of the^reasoning of Spinoza has been ex- 
posed with great sagacity by Kant. The 
whole subject is fully considered in the writings 
of Jacobi, Heydenreich, and Herder, respecting 
Spinoza. 

Very similar to the system of Spinoza is that 
of many theosophists. Pantheism has likewise 
been received into favour, in modern times, by 
many philosophers in Italy and France ; and in 
Germany, the visible tendency of many of the 
adherents of the critical philosophy is to derive 
atheism from the ideas of Kant, and thus esta- 
blish it on a new foundation. This appears to 
be the case particularly with Fichte, Nietham- 
mer, FoTberg, and Schelling. Vide Fichte's 
and Niethammer's Philosophisches Journal, St. 
I. Fichte is very unwilling to be thought an 
atheist; and, to be sure, he speaks of God; but 
he cannot speak of him in the sense in which 
others do, for he denies the existence of a being 
who is self-existent and independent of our con- 
ceptions; and such a being is intended by every 
one who speaks of God. The term God, accord- 
b9 



90 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ing to Fichte, means nothing more than the 
moral order of things ; and this order, according 
to his system, exists only in relation to us, and 
as belonging to ourselves, and not at all inde- 
pendent of our conceptions. Vide the Essay, 
Ueber Fichte's Lehre von Gott, und der gott- 
lichen Weltregierung, in Flatt's Magazin fur 
christliche Dogmatik und Moral, St. 5, s. 1 — 83, 
and 174 — 239; and Briefe uber Kant's, For- 
berg's und Fichte's Religionslehre, St. 6, s. 
184—210. Cf. the Essays of Dr. Vogel, in the 
Neue Theol. Journal, 1799 and 1800. Also two 
treatises in Siiskind's Magazin, St. 11, 12, No. 
8, Ueber die Griinde des Glaubens an eine 
Gottheit als ausserweltliche und fur sich beste- 
hende Intelligenz ; and No. 9, Ueber das Fun- 
dament des Glaubens an die Gottheit. For 
remarks respecting Schelling's doctrine of reli- 
gion, vide Dr. Vogel's Essay in Gabler's Jour- 
nal fur auserlesene theol. Litteratur, Bd. V. St. 
1, s. 1, ff., and Siiskind's Magazin, St. 17. 

[Note. — The name atheism would seem to be 
improperly given to the error of those who in 
any way allow the idea of God, however much 
their conceptions of him may vary from the 
truth. These different conceptions may be de- 
signated by names more appropriate and less in- 
jurious than that of atheism. Thus the doctrine 
of Fichte, who allows the subjective validity of 
the idea of God, though he denies its objective 
reality, is properly called idealism; the doctrine 
of Spinoza, who removes the individual exist- 
ence of nature, and transfers it to God, while 
he retains unaltered the idea of God as a self- 
conscious individual, would be properly called 
ideal pantheism; and that of Schelling, who 
transfers the individual being of God into na- 
ture, natural pantheism. These remarks are 
confirmed by the following quotation from 
Henke : — 

" Summa injuria omnes illi Atheorum numero 
accensentur, qui summum numen ab hoc uni- 
verse secretum ac disperatum cogitare nesciunt, 
maluntque Deum rerurn omnium causam imma- 
nentem, quam transeuntem, dici, nee tanien id 
quod perpetuo est, commiscent cum i!lo quod 
perpetuo fit : quorum error, profecto magis fana- 
ticus quam impius, Pantheismus et Spinosismus 
vocatur." Lineam. Inst, fidei Christ., p. 54. 

Among the ancient Greek philosophers to 
whom the name of atheist would truly apply, 
we may mention, Leucippus, Diagorasof Melos, 
Protagoras of Abdera, Critias of Athens, Frodi- 
cus, and Theodorus of Cyrene; among the 
Romans, Lucretius; among modern writers, De 
la Mettrie, Von Holbach, or La Grange, (the 
author of the System of Nature), Helvetius, 
Diderot, and D'Alembert, (the authors of the 
French Encyclopedia,) and Joseph Priestly. 
Mandeville, Edelmann, and Voltaire, appear to 



have been rather promoters of atheistical princi 
pies than themselves decided atheists.] 

SECTION XVI. 

OF THE UNITY OF GOD. 

f. Proof of the Divine Unity. 

1. The unity of God is proved from the 
idea of absolute perfection, which cannot be 
conceived as divided, or as residing in different 
subjects. This proof was sometimes employed 
by the ecclesiastical fathers — e. g., Tertullian, 
Contra Marcionem, I. 3. 

2. From the unity of the world. All the ob- 
jects existing extrinsically to God himself com- 
pose one great whole. And since the most 
perfect being affords sufficient ground for the 
existence of the world, the supposition of an- 
other being is unnecessary. This metaphysical 
proof was used by Ambrosius, De fide, I. 1. 

3. From the creation and preservation of the 
world. This proof may be stated in the most 
popular manner. If many deities participated 
in the creation and preservation of the world, 
we must suppose, (a) either that they divided 
the powers among themselves, one possessing 
one power, and another a different power, — to 
which it might be said that the supposition of a 
God with only one power is a contradiction, — 
or (b) that one among them possessed more 
power than the rest; in which case he alone is 
worthy of the name of God, and the others are 
unnecessary, or at most are only subservient to 
the supreme God ; or (c) that they all possessed 
equal powers and perfections; in which case, 
either one among them created the world, and 
is, therefore, alone entitled to the name of God ; 
or they all united their powers in the work of 
creation, which implies that their single power3 
were insufficient, and that their united powers 
alone constitute God, and thus leads us back to 
unity, (utiraj.) On the supposition that many 
different gods participate in the goverment of the 
world we could hardly avoid the conclusion that 
they would disagree in their views and plans, 
and thus introduce disorder and confusion into 
the world. This argument was formerly em- 
ployed by Abelard. 

For a more full discussion of the proofs of the 
unity of God the student may consult the fol- 
lowing works : Tollner, Versuch eines neuen 
strengen Beweises von der Einheit Gottes, in 
his Vermischten Aufsatzen, Samml. I. Num 3, 
1766. Just. Christ. Henning, Die Einigkeit 
Gottes, nach verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten 
gepruft; Altenburg, 1779, 8vo. Platner, Phi- 
losophische Aphorismen, th. i. 

The doctrine of the unity of God is taught m 
the most clear and explicit manner in the Ok 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



9] 



and New Testaments. " Jehovah is God, Jeho- 
vah is one" (-W) — i. e., one God, Deut. vi. 4; 
iv. 35, 39 ; xxxii. 39. " I am God, and there is 
none else," Isaiah, xlv. 5, 21, 22; Ps. lxxxvi. 
10. The doctrine of the unity of God was at 
the foundation of the whole Mosaic religion 
and institute, and also of the Christian religion. 
" And this is eternal life, that they might know 
thee," rov fiovov a'hifeivbv (dzbv, John, xvii. 3. 
"Hixlv eIj 0?6? 6 rtarrp, " we believe in one God," 
1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6; James, ii. 19, seq. 

II. Historical Illustrations of the Doctrine of 
the Divine Unity. 

1. The error of those who maintain that the 
universe was created, and is sustained and go- 
verned by more than one God, is called poly- 
theism. And those who had fallen into this 
error being the great body of the nations of the 
ancient world, were called by the Jews, D?ia (ra 
£>y>7, gentes) ; rendered by Luther, Heiden (lit. 
Volker) and by our translators, heathen, (lit. 
gentiles, pagans.) Hence polytheism is called 
by Luther Heidenthum, and by our translators, 
heathenism. 

2. The notion of the unity of God is com- 
monly supposed to be very obvious to the mind 
of every one. But if it is as clear and compre- 
hensible to the human understanding as the 
idea of the divine existence, for example, how 
comes it to pass that so many nations, even 
those who must be allowed to have possessed 
the highest mental cultivation, should have been 
from the first so decidedly inclined, and so ob- 
stinately attached, to polytheism 1 The Israel- 
ites themselves, who in the times of the patri- 
archs had been taught the truth on this subject 
by immediate revelation, relapsed afterwards 
into the errors of the surrounding nations. The 
idea of the unity of God cannot, therefore, as 
Grotius justly observed (De jure belli et pacis), 
be so obvious to the mind as is commonly sup- 
posed. In fact, it presupposes an acquaintance 
with many subjects far too abstract and trans- 
cendental for the uncultivated mind. But if 
this necessary knowledge is previously acquired, 
this idea results very naturally, and when it is 
once obtained it is not easily surrendered. This 
point has been ably illustrated by Meiners, His- 
toria doctrinae de deo vero ; Lemgo, Svo. 

Note. — The remarks just made strikingly 
confirm the observation, that it is very easy to 
establish by proofs drawn from reason any truth 
which is once made known, but often very dif- 
ficult to discove* in the first instance even the 
most simple truth. When we consider that the 
writers of the Old Testament taught the doc- 
trine of the unity of God at a time when all the 
nations of the world were sunken in polytheism, 
we must regard them with great veneration. 
Could they, in the situation in which they were 



placed, have obtained this truth by their own 
reflection 1 The neglected writers of the Old 
Testament speak on this subject with more 
truth and clearness than the enlightened philo- 
sophers of Greece and Rome. And to whom 
are we indebted for our just apprehensions on 
this subject 1 ? Our conduct with respect to the 
Bible, to which we owe so much, resembles 
that of ungrateful children and scholars with 
respect to their parents and instructors. 

3. But the idea of the unity of God which 
the- great multitude of the Jews entertained be- 
fore the Babylonian exile was very imperfect, 
which accounts for their inclination to idolatry. 
They regarded Jehovah as merely the first and 
greatest among the gods, as their God, and the 
God of their fathers and their country. They 
admitted the real existence of the deities of the 
heathen, and only claimed for their God a pre- 
cedence over the rest. Such, doubtless, were 
the conceptions of the great multitude of the 
Jews, although Abraham, Moses, the prophets, 
and the more enlightened part of the nation, 
were in possession of better views. Vide No. 
I. ad finem. If it were not so, how could they 
have revolted so frequently from the worship 
of the true God to idolatry, in order to make 
trial as it were of another god who might please 
them better? Jacob himself appears to have 
entertained opinions like this at first, (Genesis, 
xxviii. 16;) and his family were therefore, for 
a long time, in the practice of idolatry. He at 
least permitted it in his wives. And Moses 
was compelled to ask God for the name bf 
which he would be known to the Israelites, so 
imperfect were their conceptions with respect 
to his unity, Exodus, iii. 13. Solomon, too, 
permitted his concubines to practise idolatry 
even in the holy land, not, however, so much 
from the want of sufficient theoretical know- 
ledge on this subject as from a false toleration, 
resulting from weakness and a misplaced plia- 
bility. 

But it was not till after the Babylonian exile 
that the Jews became the zealous professors 
and stanch advocates of this doctrine. Then, 
however, and especially after they came under 
the yoke of the Persians, who were at that time 
the avowed haters of polytheism, the unity of 
God became the prevailing belief of the Jewish 
nation. But the establishment and diffusion of 
Christianity has done more than anything else 
to propagate this doctrine, which is now re- 
ceived by a great majority of mankind. To 
this result the spread of the Mahommedan re- 
ligion has contributed not a little; for Moham- 
med was one of the most zealous advocates of 
the unity of God. He, however, was indebted 
for his purest views on religion to Judaism and 
Christianity. 

4. The question has been asked whether 



92 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



4iere were any among the heathen nations who 
entertained just conceptions respecting the unity 
of God? — to which various and contradictory 
answers have been given. The following ob- 
servations may be of use in deciding the contro- 
versy : 

(a) Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, 
and other sages of the heathen world, either ex- 
pressly asserted the doctrine of the unity of 
God, or (which is the case with most of them) 
regarded it as highly probable. Vide Hennings, 
Die Einigkeit Gottes nach verscheidenen 
Gesichtspunkten gepriift, Altenburg, 1779, 8vo. 
Some of them, however, — the philosophers of 
Elea for example, — formed different conceptions 
of the unity of God from those which we derive 
from the Bible, and were rather inclined to pan- 
theism than to monotheism. 

(b) There have always been various systems 
of polytheism among the heathen nations ; and 
in judging of them, two extremes should be 
avoided. They should not be so much depre- 
ciated as they sometimes are by modern writers, 
nor should they, on the other hand, be so much 
extolled as they were by many of the church 
fathers, (Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Cle- 
mens of Alexandria, and others,) who supposed 
that by giving such favourable representations 
of the established religions of the heathen, they 
might induce them the more easily to embrace 
Christianity. Cudworth, in modern times, has 
fallen into the same extreme. 

It is doubtless true that many heathen nations 
acknowledged a supreme God. But besides 
him, they believed in many subordinate deities, 
to whom the government of the world was com- 
mitted. Such we find was the belief of most 
of the oriental nations. They supposed that the 
supreme God lived in rest and inaction, uncon- 
cerned with the affairs of the world, and in all 
respects like an eastern despot, and who, as for 
any influence beyond himself, might as well 
cease to exist. This being they conceived to 
be one, and yet material. And in general, the 
pure idea of spirit is far too transcendental for 
the infancy of the world, and we see from the 
description of God in all the ancient languages, 
the Hebrew not excepted, that he was supposed 
to exist as a subtile, corporeal essence. 

The manner in which these unjust concep- 
tions originated may be best explained as fol- 
lows: — 'When man is in a savage state and ig- 
norant of the powers of nature, he ascribes every 
effect, the cause of which is unknown to him, 
to some invisible being like himself, whom he 
imagines to be more or less powerful, good or 
bad, according to the nature of the effect which 
which he witnesses. In every body there is a 
superior being, from which its motion and ex- 
istence depend. This led naturally to the wor- 
ship of this being; and hence philosophy, when 



it afterwards arose, abstracted the system of 
emanation; which, accordingly, is one of the 
oldest philosophical systems. Vide Meiners' 
Essay concerning the origin and differences of 
false religions, in Comment. Soc. scient. Got- 
ting. vol. vii. page 58, seq. 1784 — 85. Cf. 
Kleuker's Zend-Avesta. 

[Note. — The following quotations from Lac- 
tantius shew the manner in which this subject 
was treated by the Christian fathers in their con- 
troversies with the early enemies of Christianity. 
In defending the monotheism of Christians 
against the polytheism of the heathen world, he 
says, " Sed omittamus sane testimonia prophe- 
tarum — et eos ipsos ad probationem veri testes 
citemus, quibus contra nos uti solent, poetas dico 
et philosophos. Poetse igitur, quamvis Deos 
carminibus ornaverint, et eorum res gestas arn- 
plificaverint summis laudibus, saepissime tamen 
confitentur, spiritu velmente una contineri regique 
omnia." He then passes to the philosophers, 
" quorum gravior est auctoritas certiusque judi- 
cium," and after enumerating several who had 
given intimations of the doctrine of the unity of 
God, adds, " Nunc satis est demonstrare, sum- 
mo ingenio viros attigisse veritatem et prope te- 
nuisse," Institutt. 1. i. c. 5. In a similar man- 
ner, M. Minuc. Felix concludes his defence of 
Christian monotheism by the somewhat extra- 
vagant result, " aut nunc Christianos philosophos 
esse, nut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos" 
Cap. XX.] 

5. Some sects even of the Christian church 
have been accused of receiving a number of 
gods, and especially of believing in a good and 
an evil being, or the doctrine of dualism, which 
was held in the second and third centuries by 
many Persian and other oriental phiosophers. 
Such was the doctrine of Carpocrates, Marcion, 
and many other Gnostics, and especially of 
Manes and his followers in the third and fourth 
centuries. These sects, however, according to 
the testimony of Beausobre, did not suppose that 
these beings were themselves the supreme God, 
but that they were dependent upon him, and 
that the evil principle could not in any sense be 
properly denominated God. In fine, Christians 
in general have been charged by Jews and Ma- 
hommedans with believing in a tritheism. And 
it must be confessed that too much ground for 
this charge has been afforded by the incautious 
expressions with regard to the doctrine of the 
Trinity which were common, especially among 
the ancient teachers of Christianity. And even 
at the present day there are many common and 
unenlightened Christians who fall into the same 
error. They make profession with their mouth 
of their faith in one God, while at the same 
time they conceive of him in their minds as 
three. 

Morus, s. 5, p. 44. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



93 



SECTION XVII. 

OF THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF GOD. 

There is no way so good for ascertaining the 
manner in which anything is regarded as by 
considering the names by which it is called. 
We may, accordingly, find in what light God 
was regarded by the Hebrews by examining 
the names by which they called him. In this 
view, the subject of the present section is very 
important. It shews how proper, worthy, and 
elevated, were the ideas which the Jews enter- 
tained of God. 

I. General names applied to Deity, without distinc- 
tion of true or false. 

1. ryiSx, augustus, the one to be revered, syno- 
nymous with eh'-ip. It is derived from the 

Arabic $!, colere, venerari, which is still ex- 
tant. Hence it comes to pass that it is fre- 
quently applied to kings, magistrates, judges, 
and others to whom reverence is shewn, and 
who are regarded as representatives of the Deity 
upon earth. Vide Psalm lxxxii. 6; Exodus, 
vii. 1. It is almost always rendered in the 
Sept. version, even when it occurs in the plural, 
by the words ©sdj, ®sol, which are also applied 
by the Grecian Jews to other subjects besides 
the supreme God. Vide John, x. 34 — 36. The 
plural of this word, wtHk, although it denotes 
but one subject, is appropriately used to desig- 
nate Jehovah by way of eminence. In this fact, 
many theologians have thought they perceived 
an allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity, though 
they have no sufficient ground for supposing that 
this doctrine was known at so early a period. 
And without resorting to this supposition, the 
application of this plural name to a singular 
subject may be explained from an idiom of the 
ancient oriental and some other languages, by 
which anything great or eminent was expressed 
in the plural number, (pluralis dignitatis, or ma- 
jestaticus.) Vide Glass, Philol. Sacra, p. 58, 
seq. ed Dathe. Accordingly niSx, augustus, may 
be considered as the positive degree, of which 
QTiSx, augustissimus, is the superlative. Cf. 
Genesis, xxix. 3 ; Exodus, xxi. 4, 9. 

2. Ss, ©80$, sometimes literally rendered in 
the Septuagint and in the version of Aquila, 
o ttf£i>poj, the Almighty. 

3.. jinx, SstfrtoT 1 ?^, xiSptoj, dominus. This is a 
name of dignity, applied to rulers, leaders, and 
persons of distinction, and, like the word, Sj?3, 
sometimes given even to heathen deities. Psalm 
cxxxvi. 3 ; Numbers, xxxii. 25, 27, coll. 1 Cor. 
viii. 5. The form ^hn, nowever, is the appro- 
priate designation of the supreme God. It is an 
ancient form of the plural found in several other 
Hebrew words, and still preserved in the Syriac. 
Here, as in the case of D\-iSx, the plural w\x is 



doubtless superlative, and signifies lord of lords, 
or supreme lord. * 

II. Names given to the true God by way of 
distinction. 

1. The most ancient name, by which the su- 
preme God was distinguished from the gods of 
the heathen, is, ntr hx, which first occurs in the 
history of Abraham, (Gen. xvii. 1 ;) and after- 
wards in Exodus, vi. 3, where God expressly 
says, " I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, 
and unto Jacob, by the name v-ifer Ss." From a 
false etymology this title has been supposed to 
signify the All-sufficient. But it is derived from 

the Arabic Jj&kwj; robustus, polens esse, and in 

the plural signifies, potentissimus, and is there- 
fore rendered in the Septuagint, Ttavtoxpartap, 
omnipotens. 

2. nin\ When the Israelites lived in Egypt, 
in the midst of an idolatrous people, to whose 
practices they themselves were inclined, Moses 
was commanded (Exodus, iii. 13, seq.) to an- 
nounce to them the true God as the same Being 
who had been worshipped by Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, and who would prove himself equally 
powerful and gracious to the children as to the 
fathers. God therefore called himself rnnx, I 
will be — namely, the God of the Jews as well 
as of their ancestors; and directed Moses, when 
he addressed the Israelites, to call him rrfiv — i. 
e., he shall be, from rvn, or rather, mn, fuit, 
according to a form which afterwards became 
obsolete in Hebrew, but which was preserved, 
and in common use in Chaldaic. Such was the 
origin and occasion of this appellation. 

With respect to the manner in which it was 
pronounced, as it is the third person future, it 
would be uttered, according to grammatical ana- 
logy, rnrr» or rnn. Accordingly, the Samari- 
tans, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, pronounced it 
Jave. But the Jews believed that this name 
was not to be uttered, and Josephus said, Antiq. 
II. 12, that he dared not to communicate it. In 
place of it, the Jews were accustomed to enun- 
ciate n^nS* or ■o'tn; from the latter of which its 
common punctuation is borrowed. It is always 
rendered by the Alexandrine translators by the 
word Kvptoj. The Talmud says that the angels 
themselves dared not to utter it, and denounces 
all who should be so presumptuous with fright- 
ful curses. The Jews went so far as to believe 
that it could not be uttered by man, or that one 
who might speak it would be able, by its enun- 
ciation, to work miracles. Such a superstitious 
regard for this name does not seem to have ex- 
isted before the Babylonian exile, for we meet 
with the names Jehoiakim, Jehoiadah, Jcho- 
zadak, &c, in which the word nyv evidently 
makes a part of the composite proper noun. But 



94 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



these names were afterwards altered, in conform- 
ity with this superstition, into Eliakim, &c. 
And in Daniel, Esther, and other of the latest 
books of the Old Testament, this name is wholly 
omitted. For this mystery, as well as many 
others relating to divine things, the Jews are 
indented to the Chaldeans. Vide Reland, Diss. 
de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehovah; Ultra- 
jecti, 1705, 8vo. 

This name is appropriated to the supreme God, 
and is never applied to the gods of the heathen. 
Vide 1 Kings xviii. 21, 24; Isa. xlii. 8; xliii. 11. 
It has been asserted, however, that this name 
was sometimes given, by way of metonomy, to 
such things as were consecrated to the service 
of God, and especially to the ark of the covenant. 
This was urged by Socinus and his followers, 
and has been repeated in modern times as an 
answer to the argument for the divinity of Christ, 
drawn from the application to him of the name 
ninv They refer to the passage, Numbers, x. 
35, 36, " When the ark set forward, Moses said, 
Rise up, Jehovah ! And when it rested, he 
said, Return, Jehovah." Cf. Ps. lxviii. 1 ; 
cxxxii. 8. But in this passage Moses does not 
address the ark, but God himself, who was sup- 
posed to dwell or sit upon it. 

3. rr. This name occurs only in the poetical 
portions of the Bible, and is frequently ren- 
dered in the Septuagint by the word Kvpioj. It 
is derived by many from n*o, decuit, (Jeremiah, 
x. 7,) and thus signifies, the magnificent, the 
majestic ,• but this derivation is contrary to ana- 
logy, and the word, more probably, is a mere 
abbreviation of the name, nvv. 

4. pSj?, from nSy, 6 v^iato;, Luke, i. 35,) 
Deus supremus, the Most High. God was sup- 
posed to dwell in the highest heaven, which 
was called onn, ra v^ista. Hence the name 
wcv is sometimes given to God himself, Luke, 
xv7l8, 21. 

5. m>qi; m'TV, •£ \n'Sx, xvptoj aaj3au&, 7iavto- 
;tpa?cop, x. -t. %. This title is explained in va- 
rious ways. Some translate it God of gods, 
others, God of hosts, (the stars of heaven;) 
others still, and with more probability, Lord of 
the universe, and Governor of the world, Ttavto- 
xpar'cop ; since nus frequently denotes all crea- 
tures, so far as they are employed by God in 
his service, Psalm ciii. 21. Cf. s. 45. 

6. Several other titles, which will be hereaf- 
ter enumerated in connexion with the subject of 
the divine attributes, Art. III., are used by the 
sacred writers to distinguish the true God from 
the imaginary deities of the heathen world. 
Among these we may mention the title in Sx, 
©to? 6 £wy, 6 (A.6vo$ ahrj^cvos ®sos, the living and 
true God, in opposition to the gods of the hea- 
then, who are called pa-taioi, H&otau 



ARTICLE III. 



OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 



SECTION XVIII. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING 
THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 

I. What is meant by the Nature and Attributes of 
God. 

The nature of God is the sum of all the di- 
vine perfections ; the attributes of God are the 
particular distinct perfections or realities which 
are predicable of the divine nature, (prsdicata 
dei necessarh, ob essentiam ei tribuenda, Mo- 
rus, p. 58, note 1.) The divine attributes do 
not therefore differ materialiter from the divine 
nature, but only formaliier, [i. e., the difference 
between nature and attribute is not objective, or 
does not appertain to God himself; but is sub- 
jective, formal, or, as the older theologians say, 
secundum nostrum concipiendi modum.~\ The 
attributes of God are merely our notions of the 
particular distinctions which, taken together, 
compose the divine nature. We are unable to 
take in the whole object at a single glance, and 
are compelled, in order to accommodate the 
weakness of our understanding, to consider it 
in separata portions. It should be remarked, 
moreover, that from any one of the divine attri- 
butes all the rest may be derived. Vide s. 14. 

Note.— (I) Cf. Morus, p. 57, s. 22. The 
attributes of God were called by the Jews 
DBf, rnw, nomina dei ,• for a thing is usually 
named from the attributes which it is seen to 
possess. (2) The divine attributes are called 
by the Greeks apz-tal, (1 Pet. ii. 9,) answering 
to the Latin virtutes, and the Hebrew jrrVrjR, 
(Isaiah, xlii. 8; xliii. 21,) laudes dei, rendered 
apstal in the Septuagint. They are called by 
the ecclesiastical fathers (e. g., by Cyrill of 
Alexandria), dfun, dfnouara, also Iwoiai,, irtt- 
voac, vor^iata, whence the Latins have their 
conceptus. In the western church they are 
called virtutes, attributa, proprictaies, qualitates. 
(3) The whole sum of the divine attributes is 
called by the Hebrews rvirp tds, 6o|a <deov, inas- 
much as they are admired and revered by men, 
Psa. xix. 1 ; cxlviii. 13. The phrase, to do 
anything for the glory of God, often means 
therefore nothing more than to live in such a 
manner as to testify the reverence we owe to 
God and his glorious perfections, Phil. ii. 11. 
And hence the phrase, / will not give mine ho- 
nour to another, (Isa. xlviii. 11; xlii. 8,) con- 
veys the idea, I will not permit that other gods 
should be regarded with as much reverence, or 
supposed to possess the same attributes, as be- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



95 



long to me. Accordingly, the terms -jt33, , ' 1 cr 
mrr, 6o|a &sov, majestas Dei, are mere peri- 
phrases for God, or the nature of God, which 
Paul expresses by ^tioirj, Rom. i. 20. Some- 
limes the term Sd|a is used in a more limited 
sense ; as, Rom. vi. 4, Xptcrroj jyyip^ 5ia 5o?/;< 
tou rtafpds, x. t. X., where 6o|a signifies power. 

II. W/W «;e Zvzoiy respecting the Nature and At- 
tributes of God, and whence ivc derive our In- 
formation. 

1 . 'The nature of our knowledge respecting God. 
On a subject of this kind it is impossible that 
we should have perfectly clear and distinct no- 
tions. For, 

(a) All our notions are sensible, and therefore 
inadequate. We indeed acknowledge that when 
we conceive of God we must abstract everything 
sensible from our notions; but to do this is very 
difficult, and often quite impossible. And after 
all our attempts at abstraction., our knowledge 
of God will ever remain anthropopathic and an- 
thropomorphic, as the philosophers and theolo- 
gians say — i. e., we shall ever transfer to God 
the notions and expressions which we derive 
from human things, attributes, actions, &c. 
These expressions, borrowed from human 
things, very naturally give rise to gross con- 
ceptions of God, especially among those who 
have but few words to express abstract ideas, 
r but few ideas of this nature to be expressed. 
This was the case with the language of all the 
sacred writers, and especially those of the Old 
Testament; and this observation should always 
be kept in mind by those who undertake to ex- 
plain their meaning. In order to be intelligible, 
they must needs have adopted the language of 
the rude and uncultivated people whom they 
were called to address; and in the first place 
must have condescended to the capacity of their 
hearers, in order to raise them gradually to their 
own level. But in this more improved period 
we must understand the gross expressions which 
the sacred writers were thus compelled to use, 
in the purer and more correct sense which they 
themselves attached to their language. Hence 
the rule laid down by the older theologians, 
Dicta anthropopathica et anthropomorphica Deo 
digne (S-£orfp£7twj) sunt explicanda. Vide Morus, 
p. 45, s. 7, n. 4. 

Note. — In popular instruction, the terms em- 
ployed should be neither wholly anthropopathic 
and anthropomorphic, nor, on the other hand, 
wholly proper and literal, but, according to the 
example of the Bible, should be wisely selected 
from both of these classes, as the circumstances 
of those to be instructed may require. In for- 
mer times, the teachers of religion inclined too 
much to the use of figurative expressions, which 
they employed without any explanation ; but at 
the present day the reverse of this is true. The 



modern teachers of religion carefully avoid every 
figurative expression, in the hope of rendering 
their discourse very clear and interesting to their 
hearers, while, in fact, they make it in this way 
extremely dry and powerless. The same may 
be said respecting many of the sacred songs of 
modern composition, which, for the same reason, 
are far less interesting, and far more obscure, to 
the common people, than those formerly used. 
God, as he appears in the discourses of many 
modern teachers, is a mere metaphysical being, 
who, in all his intercourse with men, acts in a 
manner wholly unlike anything which we wit- 
ness among ourselves. How, then, is it possible 
that men should feel love for him, or confidence 
in him 1 Such a mode of expression and repre- 
sentation is extremely adverse to the interests 
of the common people and of the young. It 
gives rise to doubts respecting the providence 
of God, the hearing of prayer, and other con- 
soling truths of religion, which should be ex- 
hibited in a manner consisting indeed with the 
perfections of God, and yet figuratively, and ac- 
cording to the analogy of human affairs, or their 
whole effect will be lost. On this subject the 
teacher of religion may learn a useful lesson 
from that neglected book — the Bible. He will 
there find nothing of this abstraction, but an ex- 
ample of the only correct and of the most ap- 
proved method of practical instruction. The 
sermon on the mount, the parables, and other 
discourses of Christ, should be particularly stu- 
died with reference to this subject. 

(&) We reason mostly from the constitution 
of the world to the nature and attributes of God ; 
but in ourselves, in the first instance, do we ob- 
serve the perfections which we ascribe to him, 
nor can we form any conception, or even ima- 
gine the existence, of any attribute or perfection 
which we ourselves do not to a certain extent 
possess. A man w T ho had never seen could form 
no conception of the sense of sight, nor would 
he ever suppose that there was such a sense, 
unless informed of it by others. The case is 
the same with regard to the divine perfections. 
We can form no conception of any attributes 
belonging to the Divine Being for which we 
cannot find at least some analogy in ourselves. 
We must therefore give the same names to the 
divine perfections which we are accustomed to 
give to those of which we ourselves are con- 
scious, in some humble degree ; but for this very 
reason our views of the divine nature must be 
extremely poor and imperfect. We may indeed 
have some right apprehensions with regard to 
the quality of some perfections of God, — such 
as his goodness and wisdom ; but our concep- 
tions as to their quantity — their extent and 
greatness — ever remain in the highest degree 
imperfect and infantile. The ideas which the 
child forms of the sun and its attributes are just 



96 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



as to quality, inasmuch as he conceives of it as 
a round, luminous, and hot body; but they are 
incorrect as to quantity, inasmuch as he sup- 
poses that its size is less than it actually is, its 
light no clearer than he beholds it, and its heat 
no more intense than he feels it. 

In conformity with these views are the pas- 
sages, Prov. xxx. 3 ; Is. xl. 22, xlvi. 5. When 
speaking of this pure knowledge of God, David 
says, Psalm cxxxix. 6, " it is high, I cannot at- 
tain unto it." And Paul says, 1 Tim. vi. 16, 
that God dwells in light inaccessible, (<pwj drtpotfc- 
tov,) — i. e., the infinite and perfect God is ex- 
alted above the comprehension of our feeble and 
limited faculties. Parallel with these passages 
is that in John, i. 18, " ®ebv o^Sstj tiipaxs rtC^Tioii, 
but the Messiah has revealed to us as much of 
him as it is necessary for us to know." 

With respect to the true nature of the objects 
even of the visible world, we can have no dis- 
tinct knowledge, owing to the inadequacy of our 
senses ; and in regard to the nature of the human 
soul, we are in equal ignorance. We may 
therefore, with Simonides, reasonably decline 
to give an answer to the question concerning 
the true nature of the Divine Being. When he 
was asked, Quid aut quale sit Deus ? he replied, 
quanto diutius considero, tanto mihi res videtur 
obscurior. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. I. 21. Con- 
siderations like these should not, however, deter 
us from the investigation of truth, but only ren- 
der us humble and cautious. In the exercise 
of this temper, it is our duty to make constant 
advances in divine knowledge, and to render 
our conceptions of God as pure and just as pos- 
sible. 

Note. — The representations which were com- 
mon in any particular nation respecting the cha- 
racter and employments of their gods, discover 
the degree of cultivation and of moral improve- 
ment to which that nation had attained at the 
time when these representations prevailed. The 
mythology of the Greeks, the histories in which 
their gods are described as licentious, violent, 
and deceitful, originated among them at a time 
when the practical reason was as yet but imper- 
fectly developed, and when the morals of the 
nation agreed perfectly with these representa- 
tions. At a later and more improved period, a 
new meaning was given to these ancient histo- 
ries by means of allegorical interpretation. 

2. Sources of our knowledge respecting the na- 
ture and attributes of God. 

(a) The instructions of the holy scriptures. 
God is described in the Bible in different ways. 
He is sometimes described in plain and literal 
language, without tropes or figures ; or (as these 
are sometimes unavoidable both in popular and 
scientific discourse) at least by such as are level 
to the common capacity. Of this kind are the 
descriptions of the immutability of God con- 



tained in Psalm xc, cii., cxxxix.; Job xxxvii. 
In the New Testament, the figures employed 
in the description of God are still more intelli- 
gible, and still better adapted to general use. 
But God is also sometimes described in the Bi- 
ble in a symbolical or typical manner, the sym- 
bols and types employed being in a good mea- 
sure derived from the taste and mode of thinking 
peculiar to the early age and the oriental coun- 
tries in which the sacred writers lived. But 
these symbolical representations, however im- 
portant they may be in the history of the mode 
of thought and representation common in early 
ages, are of very little importance in elucidating 
the ideas themselves which we entertain of the 
Divine Being. Among these symbols we may 
mention that of fire (Ex. iii. 2, seq.), of a gen- 
tle wind (1 Kings, xix. 12), of an eastern ruler 
and judge (Is. vi. 1), and those exhibited in 
Ezek. i. coll. Rev. i. These are all symbolical 
representations, shadowing forth some real per- 
fections of the Divine Being, and should there- 
fore be explained by the teacher of religion. He 
must not be content with saying that these are 
symbols, but must also shew what attributes of 
God they are intended to represent. He should 
shew, for example, that by the symbol of fire, 
the activity of God, his power to restore and 
destroy, the moral purity of his dispositions, are 
exhibited ; by the symbol of a gentle vjind, his 
goodness and mildness ; by the symbol of zprince 
or ruler, his supremacy and power, and his jus- 
tice in bestowing rewards and punishments. 

(b) Nature is another source of our know- 
ledge of God. (1) Internal, moral nature. In 
s. 15, II., we have shewn how the idea of the 
character and law of God is derived from the 
conscience of man. (2) External nature, or the 
sensible world. Here we argue from the effect 
to the cause, from the attributes of the creature 
to those of the Creator; and for so doing, we 
have the authority of the Bible. Vide s. 15, I. 
II. A very important passage in this connex- 
ion is Psalm xix., in the former part of which 
the visible creation is commended as a source 
of the knowledge of God ; and in the latter part, 
direct revelation. Cf. Ps. civ. ; Job, xxxvii. • 
Is. xl. ; Matt. vi. 26, and especially Rom. i. 20, 
21. r f' iere are three methods of arriving at the 
knowledge of the divine attributes from the 
contemplation of nature. Vide Morus, p. 43, 
s. 2, note 2. (a) We abstract all defects, 
weaknesses, and imperfections, from the attri- 
butes which we ascribe to God. In this way 
we pass from the imperfect degrees of power 
and wisdom which we possess to the omnipo- 
tence and omniscience of God; from the frail 
and perishing nature of man, and of all created 
things, to the eternity and immutability of God. 
Cf. Ps. cii. 25—28. This method is denomi- 
nated by the schoolmen via negationis, and bv 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



97 



Dionysius the Areopagite, ^ofcoyta atyaips-tixri. 
(j3) We conclude that God must possess, in a 
peculiar and extraordinary degree, all the per- 
fections which we perceive in ourselves or in 
other creatures. Here we employ the argument 
a minori ad majus. By this mode of reasoning 
especially do we obtain cur notions of the moral 
attributes of God, his justice, wisdom, and good- 
ness. Of. Ps. xciv. 9. This is called by the 
schoolmen via eminentise. (y) There is a third 
method of reasoning : since the production of 
certain effects can be accounted for only by 
ascribing certain attributes to their cause, these 
attributes must truly belong to this cause. 
Thus we conclude that the author of the world 
possesses supreme power, wisdom, and know- 
ledge, because these attributes are requisite for 
the production and government of the world. 
This mode of reasoning is called via causalitatis, 
or causae. It might also be called via positiva, 
in opposition to via negativa, because w T e thus 
obtain positive ideas and direct knowledge of 
the divine attributes. Thus it appears that all 
our knowledge of God is drawn from analogy. 
We ascribe to God the perfections which we 
observe in ourselves, after abstracting from 
them whatever of limitation or imperfection they 
may possess, as existing in us. Cf. No. I. 

III. Division of the Divine Attributes. 

All the divisions of the attributes of God, 
which have been adopted by philosophers and 
theologians, are in some respects imperfect and 
inconvenient, but not equally so. The follow- 
ing are some of the most common : — 

1. Negative, and positive or affirmative. The 
negative attributes are those by which we re- 
move from God certain imperfections of which 
we are conscious. Thus we ascribe to God 
infinity, independence, eternity, in opposition 
to the limitations of our own being. The posi- 
tive attributes, on the contrary, are those divine 
perfections for which we find some analogy in 
ourselves — e. g., holiness, justice, wisdom. We 
derive our knowledge of the negative attributes, 
via negationis ; of the positive, via causalitatis et 
eminentise. The ground of this division, how- 
ever, does not exist in God himself, (for all his 
attributes are positive,) but in the imperfection 
of our conceptions. 

2. Jlctive (attributa operativa, or transeuntia, 
tvipyrj'tixdi) and passive, (quiescentia, or imma- 
nentia, av£vspyrjtoxd.) The active attributes are 
those which involve the idea of action; the qui- 
escent are those which imply rest and inaction. 
Omnipotence, justice, and goodness, belong to 
the former class ; immensity, eternity, &c, to 
the latter. But from this division mistaken no- 
tions respecting God might easily result. For 
rest, properly speaking, cannot be predicated 
of God. Besides the passive attributes are, 

13 



for the most part, only the modes in which the 
active attributes exist. Thus infinity and im- 
mensity are only the maniere oVe.tr e of ihe om- 
nipotence, wisdom, holiness, and other attrU 
butes of God. 

3. Physical or natural, and moral. We are 
conscious of two principal powers, understand- 
ing and will; and accordingly we ascribe 
these to the Supreme Being. But whatever 
analogy may subsist between the divine and 
human intelligence, the former is infinitely dif- 
ferent from the latter. Now the attributes 
which we conceive to be connected with the 
divine will are called by theologians moral; 
the others, standing in no connexion with the 
will, but belonging to the understanding aad to 
the power of God as a spirit, natural ox physical. 
These terms are indeed inconvenient, since the 
moral attributes of God belong to his nature. 
Still there is ground for the division itself, 
where it is correctly stated ; which may be done 
by substituting the phrase not moral for natural. 

The natural attributes of God are beyond the 
reach of our attainment; but we may be con- 
formed to his moral character. And this is the 
conformity which the Bible intends when it re- 
quires us to resemble God, Matt. v. 45, 48 ; Col. 
iii. 10. Through this moral perfection it is that 
we are as it were related to him, Acts,xvii. 28 ; 
and by which we first obtain our idea of him. 
Vide s. 14, and s. 15, II. He is a free being, 
possessed of the purest moral will. 

Morus (p. 45, s. 7) adopts this third division 
of the divine attributes as the most useful. To 
this opinion we assent, and shall accordingly 
treat (1) of the spirituality of God, (for most 
of his physical and moral attributes are founded 
in this,) s. 19 ; (2) of his eternity and immuta- 
bility, s. 20; (3) of his omnipotence, s. 21; 
(4) his omniscience, s. 22-; (5) omnipresence, 
s. 23 ; (6) supreme wisdom, (though perhaps 
this attribute should be ascribed to the divine 
will, as has sometimes been done,) s. 24; (7) 
the nature and the perfections of the divine will, 
Introduction, s. 25 ; its freedom, immutability, 
and efficiency, s. 26. In connexion with the 
divine will are the following moral attributes, 
which are cursorily described in s. 27 — viz., 
(8) truth, and (9) goodness, s. 28; (10) holi- 
ness, s. 29; (11) justice, s. 30, 31. The Ap- 
pendix, s. 32, exhibits the doctrine of divine, 
decrees, (de decretis divinis, sive predestina- 
tione,) which is directly derived from the attri- 
butes of the divine will. 
Morus, p. 58, note, extr. 

SECTION XIX. 

OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 

I. Statement of the Doctrine. 
By the word spirit we mean to denote a na- 
ture possessed of intelligence and a free moral 



93 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



will (natura intelligens et moralis.) A mate- 
rial or corporeal substance acts only by motion ; 
a spiritual substance, on the contrary, by thought, 
or free will. Now, as we perceive that God 
possesses, and that too in the highest perfection, 
those qualities of intelligence and will which 
constitute a spiritual existence, we justly con- 
clude that he is a Spirit. Hence it follows, 
that all the attributes which he possesses as a 
Spirit are connected either with his understand- 
ing or his will. And as he possesses these at- 
tributes in the highest perfection, he is the most 
perfect Spirit. Among the attributes which be- 
long to God as a Spirit, the following may be 
enumerated : — 

1. Simplicity, (simplicitas, immaterialitas.) 
Nothing of a material or bodily nature can ap- 
pertain to spirit. Matter possesses no power 
of thought or will, and is governed by laws en- 
tirely different/from those which prevail in the 
sphere of spirit. The former is governed by the 
law of necessity, the latter by that of freedom. 
If this is so, and spirit is so wholly unlike 
matter, it cannot be compounded, and is there- 
fore simple. The Grecian philosophers call 
God arfkovs xal avhov, expers materiae ,• and with 
this description the sacred writers perfectly 
agree. John, iv. 24, Hvsvixa 6 ©fdj. Here be- 
long those texts which teach that God cannot 
be represented, Isa. xl. 25; Exod. xx. 4. 

2. divisibility. Whatever is immaterial is 
also invisible, for our bodily sight acquaints us 
only with the objects of the material world. 
Accordingly, God is called by the sacred writers 
aopatos, Col. i. 15 ; Rom. i. 20 ; 1 Tim. i. 17. 
We are indeed told in the Bible that we shall see 
God. But by this phrase we are to understand 
merely that we shall know God, or that he will 
honour us with his favour and intimacy. Thus 
Moses was said to have seen God face to face, 
and the righteous are promised as their reward 
in eternal life that they shall see God — e. g., 
1 John, iii. 2. This figure is taken from a cus- 
tom of eastern courts, in which it was regarded 
as a great privilege to stand in the presence, or 
enjoy the intimacy, of the king. Cf. Matt. v. 
8; xviii. 10; Heb. xii. 14. 

3. Indestructibility . Whatever is composed 
of divisible parts may be destroyed ; but spirit, 
which is uncompounded and simple, cannot 
be divided or destroyed. Hence the attribute 
<x<p£apcaa is ascribed to God, and he is called 
a^ap-tog, 1 Tim. i. 17, and a^ap-r'oj ©soj, in op- 
position to q>$aptb$ ai£pcorto$, Rom. i. 23. 

From these attributes which belong to God 
as a Spirit we may deduce the following con- 
clusions — viz. : 

(a) God cannot be represented, since he is 
both immaterial and incorporeal. The attempt 
to exhibit him by means of sensible images 
always leads to gross and unworthy conceptions 



of his nature. For this reason Moses forbada 
the Israelites to make any images of God, 
Exod. xx. 4 ; and with this prohibition all the 
sacred writers agree, Isa. xlvi. 5; Acts, xvn. 
29 ; Rom. i. 23, &c. The worship of images 
is not necessarily connected with that of idols. 
The Israelites in the wilderness worshipped 
their own God, Jehovah, under the image of a 
golden calf; and this, properly speaking, was 
not idolatry; but experience shews that the 
transition is easy from the worship of images to 
idolatry ; and such was the case even with the 
Israelites. The fact that Moses and other 
writers of the Old Testament, notwithstanding 
their zeal against the gross representations of 
God, still described him in terms which were 
highly figurative, may be accounted for by the 
consideration that the Jews, as a nation, were 
extremely rude and uncultivated, and had no 
words in their language for the expression of 
abstract ideas and spiritual things. The sacred 
writers accordingly, in speaking to them of God 
and divine things, were compelled to use terms 
which had before been applied only to material 
objects in a metaphorical sense; and these 
terms, whenever they occur in the Bible, must 
therefore be interpreted ^jorfpsrtwj. Vide s. 18. 
When we undertake to speak of God to uncul- 
tivated men, we can make ourselves understood 
in no other way than by the use of the words 
descriptive of the organs which men employ in 
their affairs, or by which they exhibit their va- 
rious powers. To denote the commandment of 
God, we must speak of his mouth; to denote 
his knowledge of the actions of men, we must 
speak of his eyes and ears; we must describe 
his power by speaking of his hand,- his dispo- 
sition and feelings by speaking of his heart, &c. 
(6) A merely external and bodily service is 
of no avail with God, who is a Spirit. So we 
are taught by Christ himself, John, iv. 21 — 24. 
One reason why so many believe that God will 
be satisfied with an outward form of worship is, 
that they entertain low conceptions of his na- 
ture, and regard him as like themselves. 

II. Historical Sketch of this Doctrine. 

1. It is a great mistake to suppose that the 
same pure and abstract ideas which are attached 
to the word spirit in our metaphysics were as- 
sociated with it in the minds of the ancient Is- 
raelites. Ideas of such a nature were far too 
high and transcendental for so early a period. 
The Hebrew word nn, which is translated spi- 
rit, signified, properly and originally, wind, 
breath, (and so speech,} and life. Vide s. 9. 
The power of the wind is great, and yet the 
wind itself is invisible. Hence in nearly all 
the ancient languages every power which was 
at the same time great and invisible was de- 
noted by some word which in its literal signifi- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



cation stood for the ivind, — e. g., nn, 7iv£v[xa, 
spiritus. That invisible power which moves 
and animates our bodies is indicated by the mo- 
tion of the air, or breath, and thence derives its 
name ; for as soon as we cease to inhale the 
air, we cease to move and to live. Hence even 
this invisible power, which gives motion and 
life to our bodies, is also called nn; cf. Eccles. 
viii. 8 ; xii. 7. The body, which serves as the 
organ through which this power acts, is called 
-C'2, and is thus widely distinguished from the 
power itself by which it is moved. In this 
way, nn and nt*3 are always opposed one to the 
other. According to this analogy, the Hebrews 
gave the name nn to all the invisible powers, 
whether physical or moral, which they saw in 
operation in the universe, and consequently to 
God himself, who is possessed of all conceiva- 
ble powers in the highest possible degree. 
Thus nn and nvr nn came to signify (a) the 
nature of God in general ; (b) his invisible 
power, as exercised both in the material world, 
in its creation (Gen. i. 2), &c, and in the soul 
of man, in promoting its moral improvement, in 
the act of inspiration, and in various other ways. 
Vide 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2 ; cf. s. 9. But the an- 
cient Hebrews justly ascribed thought and will 
to the same principle which moves and animates 
us, and so denominated them nn, rtvevfia' which 
term they then applied, by way of analogy, to 
the divine intelligence and will. Now, since 
the body, when destitute of this animating prin- 
ciple, is incapable of will and action, the term 
nfc'3 was made to stand for whatever is weak 
and powerless, and the term nn, for whatever is 
great and strong, both in the material and moral 
world. Vide Isa. xxxi. 3. Hence it appears 
that the Hebrews made sufficient distinction be- 
tween spirit and body, although in their notions 
respecting spirit they may not have agreed ex- 
actly with modern metaphysics. Their views 
on this point were sufficiently distinct for all 
practical purposes; and of anything more — of 
whatever possesses a merely speculative inte- 
rest — they were as well ignorant as are the com- 
mon people of our own day. Many among 
them did indeed suppose that God, like man, 
was of a corporeal as well as spiritual nature, 
as appears from many of the ancient terms em- 
ployed in their language; and this accounts, in 
some measure, for their strong and invincible 
propensity to the worship of images. The same 
thing is found to be true in regard to other nations 
who have worshipped God under some human 
resemblance, respecting which there is a remark- 
able passage in Cicero, Nat. Deor. I. 27, seq. 

2. But even among Christians there have 
been some who have conceived of God as mate- 
rial and corporeal. The Ebionites of the second 
century, Audaeus the Syrian, and a great part of 
the Egyptian monks of that period, are accused 



of entertaining this error. Even some of the 
fathers, as we find, ascribed somewhat corpo- 
real to God. Tertullian asks, Quis negabit 
Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? Me- 
lito and many others expressed the same opi- 
nions. They were opposed, however, by Ori- 
gen and others, who earnestly contended for 
the truth, that God is aau>[xato^. In the seven- 
teenth century, Hobbes, and in the eighteenth, 
Priestley, contended that God possessed a body, 
as otherwise he could stand in no relation to 
bodily things. Accordingly they ascribed to 
him the attribute of extension. 

This opinion may be traced to various causes. 
(1) With some it was mere ignorance, or the 
use of unguarded expressions, like those em- 
ployed by illiterate people at the present day. 
This was probably the case with the Ebionites, 
Audaeus, and some of the fathers. (2) Others 
seem to assert these views when they do not in 
reality entertain them, the mistake arising from 
the different use of language. Such is the case 
with Tertullian, who meant to denote by the 
word corpus nothing more than substance and 
individuality. He, however, believed extension 
to be an attribute of spirit. (3) Others still are 
gross materialists, and deny the possibility of 
simple substances. Such are Hobbes, Priest- 
ley, and others. (4) Some of the mystics ascribe 
extension to God, and consequently somewhat 
of a material nature. This may be said of the 
Egyptian monks; and, as a general thing, the 
mystici impuri have been very much inclined to 
pantheism. 

Morus, p. 45, s. 7, extr. et not. 4. 

SECTION XX. 

OF THE ETERNITV AND IMMUTABILITY OF GOD. 

I. What Eternity is, and upon what it depends. 

The word eternity is used, as philosophers 
observe, in a figurative and a literal sense. In 
the figurative or popular sense it denotes an ex- 
istence which maj r indeed have had a beginning, 
but will have no end; like that of the angels, 
of the human soul, &c. Instead of eternity in 
this sense, the shoolmen use the words seviter- 
nitas, sempiternitas. In the literal sense it de- 
notes an existence which has neither beginning 
nor end, like that of God. The eternity of God, 
considered as without beginning, is called by 
the schoolmen aeternitas h parte ante, or a priori, 
and sometimes prituitas Dei ,- considered as 
without end, it is called seterniias a parte post, 
or a posteriori, more commonly called immor- 
tality, d^apffia, o&avacaa. This immortality of 
God, however, unlike that of created spirits, is 
necessary ; with him there is necessitas absoluta 
vivendi,- nor can he, like the creatures of his 
power, ever cease to exist. 



00 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



The eternity of God depends upon the neces- 
sity of his existence; since we cannot suppose 
that there ever was, or will be, a period in 
which a necessary being did not or will not 
exist. To suppose this would be con!radictory, 
and equivalent to saying that a necessary being 
is not necessary. Such was the reasoning of 
Plato in Timaeus; of Proclus in his Commen- 
tary on the same ; of Parmenides and Plotinus. 
- The question is sometimes asked in this con- 
nexion, whether the notion of the eternity of 
God implies the exclusion of all succession of 
time in his existence, so that in him the past, 
present, and future are indistinguishable. Cle- 
ricus and other Socinian and Arminian theolo- 
gians, and some philosophers, have contended 
for a succession of time in God. This subject 
lies so wholly beyond the circle of our know- 
ledge, and is so little analogous to anything 
with which we are acquainted, that at first sight 
it might seem not to admit of a definite determi- 
nation. At least, we are incapable of forming 
any conception on this subject, as we can never 
contemplate an object as without time and space. 
In everything in the material world around us, 
and even in ourselves, there is a constant suc- 
cession of time; and however much we may 
strive to lift our minds above this necessity, we 
shall still find ourselves compelled to conceive 
of any event — for example, the creation of the 
world — which with us is past, as past also with 
God, and as future with him before it took 
place. Most writers, however, will admit of no 
succession of time in God; they justly consi- 
der that this succession as it exists in us in- 
volves imperfections of various kinds, and espe- 
cially dependence and limitation, and cannot 
therefore be admitted to have existence in the 
divine nature. But it is best to pass by this 
metaphysical subtlety, and to represent God to 
our minds as existing without beginning or 
end, as coeval through all time, past, present, 
and future, with all the creatures of his hand. 
In intimate connexion with this doctrine is that 
of— 

II. The Immutability of God. 

Since the existence of God is necessary, we 
cannot suppose that his nature possesses any 
attribute at one time of which it is destitute at 
another. If he changes, it must be for the bet- 
ter or for the worse ; neither of which can be 
supposed with regard to him. Accordingly, his 
relation to his creatures, which first arose on the 
creation of the world, can have produced no al- 
teration in God himself; he continues the same 
amidst all the changes of created things. To 
doubt this truth would involve us at once in 
contradiction. We must therefore believe it, 
although we have no analogy for it, and of 
course cannot form ;my clear conception of it. 



This immutability relates to :he decrees and the 
actions, as well as to the nature, of God. Cf. 
Morus, p. 53, s. 15, n. 1. The immutability of 
God in respect to his actions is most frequently 
mentioned in the Bible ; nor is this attribute 
denied by those passages which affirm that 
God repents, &c. When God appears to be 
displeased with anything, or orders it differ- 
ently from what we expected, we say, after the 
manner of men, that he repents. That this is 
the meaning is plain from other texts, in which 
the immutability of the divine decrees is ex- 
pressly asserted. Vide s. 25, which treats of 
the will of God, and Morus, p. 45, n. 5. 

In these attributes which have just been 
named, two others are involved — viz., self-exist- 
ence (aseitas), by which is meant that God has 
the ground of his existence in no other being 
than himself; and independence, by which is 
meant that God cannot be determined or con- 
trolled, either as to his existence, his will, or 
his actions, by any other being. Morus, p. 45, 
s. 8. 

III. The Biblical representation of these Attributes. 

The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to 
have been conceived in the early ages of the 
world, and is not accordingly found expressed 
by any word in the ancient languages. But as 
cultivation advanced, and this idea was more 
distinctly developed, it became necessary, in 
order to express it, either to invent new words, 
or to employ old words in a new sense, as was 
done with the words setemitas, perennitas, &c. 
The Hebrews, like other nations, were destitute 
of any single word to express the idea of eter- 
nity. The word oViy, like aluv and atwvtoj, sig- 
nifies any duration, especially a long period, 
whether past, present, or future. They were 
compelled, therefore, to have recourse to circum- 
locution. To express setemitas a parte ante, 
they said, before the world was; setemitas h 
parte post, when the world shall be no more. 

Some of the principal texts of scripture re- 
specting these attributes. 

1. Respecting the eternity of God. God is 
said to be the first and the last — i. e., the being 
who existed before the world began, and who 
will continue when it shall be destroyed, Isaiah, 
xliv. 6, coll. xli. 4. The same meaning is con- 
veyed when God is said to be A xai Q, dp^^ xai 
titos, Rev. i. 8 ; or, as the Rabbins say, from 
n to n — i. e., ab initio usque ad extremum. In 
Psalm xc. the eternity of God is described in a 
very sublime manner. The length of human 
life, which had previously been from one hun- 
dred and twenty to one hundred and thirty 
years, had been suddenly abridged in the desert 
to seventy or eighty years. Moses hence takes 
occasion to compare the perishable nature of 
man with the eternal nature of God. The 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



101 



phrase "before the mountains were brought 
forth" is a periphrasis for seternitas a parte ante, 
like rtpo xo.ta$o%r t s xoauov, John, xvii. 24. In 
the phrase nSy -13? nStyp, the former word denotes 
past, the latter, future time ; like art' atwvcov, sis 
love atwj/as, in the New Testament, John, vi. 
51, seq. The meaning of the Psalmist, ver. 3, 
seq., is briefly this : short and transitory is the 
life of man ; but it is otherwise with God : the 
being who made us mortal is himself immortal. 
Of the same import is the passage, Ps. cii. 
24 — 28. "Thy years are throughout all gene- 
rations (ann *vna)." " Of old (c^jdS) hast thou 
laid the foundations of the earth" — i. e., God 
existed before the creation of the world. Verse 
27, " Thou art the same" — i. e., God himself is 
immutable amidst the alterations of the world ; 
he changes not with the changing universe. 
"Thy years shall have no end" — i. e., God is 
immortal — a periphrasis for seternitas a parte 
post. So Paul describes God, 1 Tim. vi. 16, 
as 6 i*6vos ex u>v a^ai/atfuxv — i. e., immortal in 
a peculiar sense, necessarily so — a being who 
can have no end. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 17. The pas- 
sage, Rom. i. 20, dittos avtov 8vva t uis xal ^scor^j, 
belongs in this connexion. 

2. Respecting the immutability of God. This 
attribute is described by the text before quoted, 
Ps. cii. 28, (wn nnx, axtoc, semper idem.) It is 
also implied in the names rnnx nrrs rrr*?, and 
rnrr; in the Pentateuch. Vide s. 17. In Ps. xc. 
4, it is expressly said, that time produces no 
alteration in God, as it does in creatures: "A 
thousand years pass away before thee like yes- 
terday, or like a watch in the night." Vide 
Uebersetzung der Psalmen. Parallel with these 
texts is that in 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9, " Be not ignorant 
of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord 
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as 
one day." If it appears (ver. 9) that God does 
not immediately accomplish his promises and 
threats, we may yet be certain that he will not 
forget to accomplish them. For (ver. 8) he is 
not mutable. Length of time makes no altera- 
tion in him, that he should forget anything, as 
we do. What took place a thousand years ago, 
is as new and as present to him as what takes 
place to-day. This is the proper practical view 
of this subject. In other texts the immutability 
of the divine decrees is spoken of, and they are 
called ai-isTfafii^ifa, Rom. xi. 29 ; also, <to afisifd- 
$stov tij$ ,3or?vrs avroi;, Heb. vi. 17, 18 ; Mai. 
iii. 6 ; Ps. xxxiii. 10, 11. The passage, James, 
i. 17, may be connected with these, as it. does 
not properly treat of the immutability of the na- 
ture, but of the purposes and dispositions of 
God. He is there said to be the creator and 
preserver of the lights of heaven, (jtatrfi tuv 
$u>?u>v,) with whom is no variableness (rtapctft.- 
%ayr t ,) nor shadow of alteration (tpoTir^ aTtoaxl- 
aapa) — i. e., his favour is not changeable, like 



that of a prince, but he is always equally gra- 
cious to men. 

3. Respecting the self-existence of God. The 
passages Ps. xc. cii. &c, which speak of the 
eternity of God, teach this attribute implicit]} 1 ", 
and by way of consequence. Vide also Acts, 
xvii. 24, 25. Cf. Philo, De Opif. mundi, p. 23, 
ed. Pf. M^Sevoj TtpoaSsou'ci'Os a?.7.ov. 

4. Respecting the independence of God. Here 
belongs the text just quoted from Acts. This 
attribute is also exhibited very intelligibly and 
plainly in Rom. xi. 33 — 3G. T^'j Gv/*j3ov'kG$ 
aitov iyivsro; r t ■tic, rtpoiScoxsv avtc>, xai avtarto- 
So^fjstai avta. Cf. Isaiah, xl. ; 13, seq. Mo- 
ms, p. 46, note. 

Moms, p. 44, s. 6, coll. p. 53, s. 15. 

SECTION XXI. 

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD. 

I. Definition, Ground, and Proof of this Attribute. 

The omnipotence of God, defined in philoso- . 
phical language, is that attribute by which he 
can bring to pass everything which is possible. 
It is, then, nothing else than an exertion of the 
divine will. But since its object is rather phy- 
sical than moral good, it is here placed among 
the physical attributes of God. The ground of 
this attribute lies in the supreme perfection and 
infinity of the divine nature. Since God is in- 
finite, his power cannot admit of bounds or 
limitations. But that God can do only what is 
possible, as they say in the schools, is still true in 
itself, and perfectly consistent with his infinity. 
For an impossibility, in the philosophical sense 
of the word, is something which implies a con- 
tradiction, and is a nonentity. One who should 
contend that God could perform what is impos- 
sible, would contend that he could act contra- 
dictorily, which would be an imperfection not 
ascribable to the most perfect being. This 
metaphysical definition should, however, never 
be used in popular instruction, since it can never 
be made sufficiently intelligible; and the words 
possible and impossible are not used in the same 
sense in common life, and in the schools of phi- 
losophers. Common people, who are unaccus- 
tomed to reflection, will always find difficulty 
in the assertion, that God can do only what is 
possible. To them, therefore, this attribute 
should be described, according to the language 
of scripture, to be that by which God can do 
everything which lie will. This definition com* 
prebends the whole, since God can never will 
anything which is impossible. 

In proof of the unlimited power of God, we 
may here mention the greatness of his works. 
Vide Rom. i. 20; Job, xl. 41. 

The omnipotence of God is divided, in the 
philosophical and theological schools, into ab- 
i2 



:02 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



noluta and ordinata. The absolute omnipotence 
of God is that immediate, miraculous exertion 
of his power, which is seen in the creation of 
the world, &c. His omnipotentia ordinata is 
that common, regular exercise of his power, by 
which he makes use of the course of nature, 
which he himself has established for the promo- 
tion of his own designs. Thus he produces the 
warmth of the atmosphere, not per potentiam ab- 
solutam, but ordinatam, in causing the sun to 
shine. The same thing is expressed by saying, 
he acts per causas secundas. 

II. The Biblical Representations of the Omnipotence 
of God. 

1. The common literal representations which 
the Bible gives of the omnipotence of God, are 
ni3 and mi33, syepyfta, hvvo.au;, fiovo;, hwdatr^, 
the Almighty. Jer. x. 12, " He created the earth 
by his power (ni3)." The plural rvrvua is ap- 
plied to the actual exertions of the divine power, 
and so, like §vvdpsi$, signifies miracles. 

2. Besides these literal, there are many figu- 
rative, anthropomorphical representations of the 
divine power contained in the Bible. Amons 
these are the following: the hand, strong hand, 
right hand, of God; also, the arm, the long arm 
(,aa;cjOo^£tp), of God, in opposition to a short arm, 
the index of weakness, &c. Vide Deut. xxxii. 
39; Isa. lix. 1, seq. The representation that 
God works by speaking, by his word, or his 
command, is also figurative. Vide the history 
of the creation, Gen. i. 3, seq. In Ps. xxxiii. 
6, it is said, "by the word of the Lord the hea- 
vens were formed ;" and in ver. 9, " He spake, 
and it was done; he commanded, and it stood 
fast." In this sense /r^a ®sov is used, Heb. xi. 
3 ; and fjyjfjia hwd/xsco; {Bwatov') avtov, the word 
of his power, his command, Heb. i. 3. All these 
are figurative expressions, intended to shew the 
ease and certainty with which God performs his 
works and executes his will. He is represent- 
ed by this image as a powerful ruler, to whose 
mere word and command everything is subject. 
He does not need to give his own hand to the 
work : it costs him only a word. In other pas- 
sages, we find that what is done is ascribed more 
directly to the will of God (for the language of 
the Bible is wisely varied) — e. g., Rev. iv. 11, 
" Thou hast created all things, xal Sid to $i%rj/xd 
gov fpav" i. e., they owe their existence to thy 
mere will. 

3. The following are some of the texts in 
which unlimited power is ascribed to God in the 
clearest manner: Ps. cxv. 3, "Our God is in 
heaven; he does whatsoever he will." Rom. 
iv. 17, Ka%ovv?os td [at] ovta, wj ovta, he called 
them from nothing; he created what did not 
exist. Jer. xxxii. 17, "Thou hast made the 
heaven and the earth with thy great power, and 



thine outstretched arm." In Ephes. iii. 20, Paul 
describes the infinity of the divine power by 
saying that God is able vrthp rtdvta TtoL/jaai, i-Ttsp 
ix Ttfptocfov wj/ voov[A8v — i. e., to do infinitely more 
than all that we imagine. In Ephes. i. 19, he 
speaks of VTitpfidT^kov jxiys^o^ b~vvd/jL£<x>$ avtov. 
The phrase ovx dhvvatrfin rtapa ta 0?<p rtav \yr t p.a, 
Luke, i. 37, is to be classed among the preceding. 
It is a proverbial phrase, which conveys the 
meaning that God can perform what may ap- 
pear to us impossible, or rather, that God is 
never unable to fulfil his promise, Qjr^a "on.) 
Cf. Gen. xviii. 14, whence these words are 
taken. 

Morus, p. 50, s. 13. 

SECTION XXII. 

OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD. 

This attribute is ascribed to God, to denote 
that he possesses the most perfect knowledge. 
That it is rightly ascribed to him may be easily 
shewn, even by reasoning a priori. Since God 
is a Spirit, he possesses cognitive power, and 
of course knowledge. And since he is the most 
perfect Spirit, he possesses the most perfect in- 
tellect and intelleQtion, which is called omni- 
science. 

I. The Extent, or the Objects of the Divine 
Knowledge. 

How the divine intelligence can comprehend 
and survey so vast a number and exhaustless a 
variety of objects, is quite inconceivable to our 
finite and feeble capacities. Paul speaks of the 
i3a^os yvwcr£w$ ®eov, Rom. xi. 33. The Bible 
often says, "there is no searching of his under- 
standing," Is. xl. 28 ; " his understanding is in- 
finite," Ps. cxlvii. 5. The ancient Grecian 
philosophers frequently express very just and 
pure conceptions of the omniscience of God. 
When Thales was asked if some of the actions 
of men were not unknown to God, he answered, 
" Not even their thoughts." Xenophon records 
similar sentiments of Socrates, which are re- 
peated by Plato in Parmenides. The objects 
of the divine knowledge have sometimes been 
divided, in accommodation to the weakness of 
human understanding, into several classes. 

1. His own nature is one object of the know- 
ledge of God. And from this knowledge it re- 
sults that he must have had from all eternity the 
ideas of the things which he has made, and 
which were then only possible. This know- 
ledge is called by theologians cognitio nalura- 
lis — (i. e., naturae sua?.) It is this of which 
Paul speaks in 1 Cor. ii. 11, "No man know- 
eth the thoughts of a man, but the spirit of a man 
which is in him. OvVw xal td rov ®sov ovdsi$ 
oldsv, si y.ri to Tivtvpa tov ©sou." 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



103 



2. All objects extrinsic to himself are also in- 
cluded in the knowledge of God. These may- 
be divided into 

(a) Possible things, which are known by God, 
although they may never become real. The 
Knowledge which respects these subjects is 
called scientia siinplicis inielligentise, because it 
remains in the mind of God, without calling 
forth the exercise of his will. In close con- 
nexion with this knowledge is what is called 
scientia Dei media, or conditionata, or scientia de 
futuro conditionato, the knowledge of what is 
conditionally possible — i. e., the knowledge of 
those things which, although they have never 
come to pass, might have taken place under 
certain presupposed possible conditions. For 
example : God foresees that this youth, if he had 
lived to a certain age, would have become, under 
particular circumstances and in a particular situ- 
ation, a very bad man. He therefore takes him 
from life at an early period, or brings him into 
a situation in which he is unable to do the in- 
jury foreseen. This injury, therefore, never 
becomes real; but God foresaw it per scieniiam 
mediarn, and prevented it from taking place. 
This scientia media must necessarily be ascribed 
to God, since many other divine attributes de- 
pend upon it — e. g., the wisdom of God, which 
consists in his determining which is the best 
among many possible things, and his choosing 
according to this determination. Examples of 
the exercise of this scientia media are furnished 
in the Bible, Jer. xxxviii. 17 — 20; 1 Sam. xxiii. 
5 — 14 ; Matt. xi. 21 — 23. The term media was 
first employed by Fonseca, a Portuguese Jesuit, 
and an Aristotelian, of the sixteenth century. 
But its use in theology was principally author- 
ized by Lud. Molina, a Spanish Jesuit- of the 
seventeenth century, and a disciple of Fonseca, 
in his book, De concordia gratise et liberi arbitrii. 
He intended, by the introduction of this term, 
to obviate the objections which had arisen to the 
doctrine of Augustine concerning predestination. 
The thing itself, however, which is designated 
by this term, did not originate with him, but is 
found in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, 
Augustine, (De dono perseverentias, c. 9,) and 
other of the ecclesiastical fathers. 

(6) Real things. God, accordingly, knows 
the nature of all things, animate and inanimate, 
physical and moral. He knows the thoughts 
and desires of the human heart. This know- 
ledge is called scientia libera, or visionis — im- 
mediate, intuitive knowledge. It is involved 
in the idea of the most perfect being ; it was re- 
quisite in the creation of the world, and is essen- 
tial to the rule and providence which God exer- 
cises over the works of his hand. He who cre- 
ated, constructed, and preserves the universe, 
must necessarily understand it perfectly; and 
especially the moral Governor of the world must 



perfectly understand the moral character of his 
subjects, in order to the just distribution of re- 
wards and punishments. This doctrine is one, 
therefore, of the highest practical importance. 
It is calculated, on the one hand, to impart con- 
solation to the pious, and, on the other, to 
awaken a salutary dread in the thoughtless and 
impure, and to urge them to repentance. On this 
account it is often exhibited in the holy scrip- 
tures. We read in 1 John, iii. 20, ©toj yiv^axsi 
Tidvta, and in Heb. iv. 13, rcavta bk yvfxva xai 
tErpazrJuGiAeva 7oi$ dty^taJ^uois aitov. The Bible 
frequently enters into a specific enumeration of 
the different classes of objects which are com- 
prehended in the knowledge of God. He knows 
things animate and inanimate, Matt. vi. 2G ; x. 
29 ; the destinies of men, Matt. vi. 32 ; their 
thoughts and secret purposes, Jer. xi. 18 — 20 ; 
Psa. xciv. 11 ; their sufferings and sorrows, Psa. 
lvi. 8 ; their virtues and vices, 1 Pet. iii. 12, &c. 
One of the most sublime descriptions of the 
knowledge of God is contained in Psa. exxxix. 

But in consequence of the form of time which 
is inherent in our constitution, we are compelled 
to regard objects as past, present, and future,- 
and, the same being transferred to God, his 
knowledge has been differently denominated, as 
it respects the first, second, or third of these 
classes, reminiscentia, visio, and pr&scientia. 
That God should possess recollection and vision, 
we may easily understand, from the analogy 
which we find for these attributes in our own 
minds. But he also possesses prescience, and 
this relates to future objects of three different 
classes. (1) Futura necessaria — those things 
which result from the established course of na- 
ture, or from a fixed divine decree ; (2) futura 
conditionata — those things which will take place 
only on certain conditions, — the evil or good 
that will be done by a person under given cir- 
cumstances ; (3) futura contingentia — those 
events which depend on the free will of man, 
or other rational beings, and therefore ma3 T or 
may not come to pass. The knowledge of God 
relating to the last of these classes is called xat' 
i%oxr ( v, his prescience. 

This divine foreknowledge of the events de- 
pending upon the free will was denied by some 
of the ancient philosophers. [Cicero uses the 
following argument: — " Si praescita sunt omnia 
futura, hoc ordine venient, quo ventura esse 
praescita sunt. Et si hoc ordine venient, certus 
est ordo rerum praescienti Deo. Et si est certus 
ordo rerum, est certus ordo causarum ; non euim 
aliquid fieri potest, quod non aliqua efliciens 
causa praecesserit. Si autem certus est ordo 
causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fato fiunt ora 
nia, quae fiunt. Quod si ita est, nihil est in 
nostra potestate, nullumque est arbitrium volun- 
tatis." De Divinatione, II. 5 — 7.] The same 
ground is taken by some of the schoolmen, and 



104 



HRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



by Socinus and his followers. [Socimis says : 
— "Animadvertendum est, infallibilem istam Dei 
prae notionem a nobis non admitti, nisi prius 
probetur." — " Quaedam sunt quae Deus scire 
nulla ratione dici potest, nectamen ipsius omni- 
seientiae quidquam derogatur." — " De futuris 
contingentibus non est determinata Veritas." 
Praelec. Theol. c. 8 — 11.] The common argu- 
ment is briefly this : the foreknowledge of God, 
which is contended for, invades the freedom of 
the will in man and other moral beings. For 
if God foreknows all things, and is infallible in 
his knowledge, whatever he foreknows must 
take place, is therefore necessary, and no longer 
dependent on the freedom of man. 

But this reasoning is fallacious; for man does 
not perform one action or another because it was 
foreknown by God; but God foreknew the ac- 
tion, because man, in the exercise of his free will, 
would perform it. Our own knowledge of the 
future bears some analogy with this, since it is 
always founded upon a knowledge of the past 
and present. But on account of the imperfection 
and limitation of our view, the future is to us 
only probable, and our knowledge of it only 
conjectural; while to God the future is certain, 
and his knowledge with respect to it infallible. 
[The same answer, in substance, was. given by 
Augustine to the passage above cited from Ci- 
cero : "Non est consequens, ut si Deo certus 
est omnium ordo causarum, ideo nihil sit in nos- 
tra? voluntatis arbitrio; ei ipsse quippe voluntaies 
nostrae in causarum or dine sunt, qui certus est 
Deo, ejusque praescientia continetur, quoniam 
et humanae voluntates humanorum operum cau- 
sae sunt. Atque ita, qui omnes rerum causas 
praescivit, profecto in iis causis etiam nostras 
voluntates ignorare non potuit. Interim nullo 
modo cogimur, aut praescientia. Dei retenta tol- 
lere voluntatis arbitrium, aut retento voluntatis 
arbitrio Deum negare praescium futurorum, sed 
utrumque amplectimur, illud, ut bene credamus, 
hoc, ut bene vivamus." Augustine, De Civ. D. 
V. c. 9, 10. The same distinction between 
foreknowing and foreordaining is also suggested 
by John of Damascus: "Xpjj yivJxsxscv, w? 
rtdvtu /jlsv rtpoyivuxsxti b ©soj, ov ridvta 8s rtpoopc- 
%£(,. HpcdyLvJzaxsi yap xal td £<p' r^iv, ov rtpoopi^ft 
8s avtd, ov yap ^rshso -trjv xaxlav, ytvsrs^cu, ov8s 
fitd&'tac iriv dpftriv' C!>6ts "trfi ^-staj 7tpoyvio6tLxr t $ 
xs"ktv6soiq I'pyov la-tlv o rtpooptcf/tdj. lipoopl^st, 8s 
tfa ovx sty rjfji.iv xorfd "twv rtpoyvcotftv avtov' r)8rj 
yap xatd krjv rCpoyvcoocv avtov 7tpoixptvs 7tdvta b 
0£Oj xatd i-qv aya^-OT'jjT'a xal trjv 8ix<xi06vvr l v 
av-T'ou." "ExSotf:,? dxpifi-qq, x. t. %. L. ii. c. 30.] 

Besides, the free actions of men are never 
wholly arbitrary, but, on the contrary, are per- 
formed in view of some motive, which, however 
concealed it may he from our short-sighted eyes, 
is visible to God, who knows intuitively the 
whole extent of the present and future; who is 



the author of the laws by which we act; and 
who, without this knowledge, would be incom- 
petent to the government of the world, which 
must then be abandoned, in a great measure, to 
the control of chance. [This appears to be the 
most perfect solution of the difficulty in question. 
So long as liberty was supposed to consist in a 
choice undetermined by motives, there remained 
an irreconcilable disagreement between the di- 
vine prescience and human freedom ; and con- 
sistent writers saw themselves compelled to re- 
ject the one or the other. But when freedom 
came to be considered more justly, as the power 
which we possess of determining our actions by 
the ideas of reason, this disagreement was re- 
moved. Cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. i. s. 
406; Leipzig, 1828.] 

This doctrine must therefore be admitted to 
be true, although the mode of it must be forever 
unintelligible to us, who look at everything un- 
der the limitations of time and space. The mis- 
takes into which we fall on this subject are owing 
to the words which we emplo} r , and to the po- 
verty of our conceptions. The terms chance and 
contingent may facilitate, to our minds, the under- 
standing of certain ideas, and are intended for 
the illustration of certain attributes of things; 
but to the divine intelligence, in which there 
is no succession of time, and by which the past, 
present, and future are immediately compre- 
hended, nothing can appear contingent. Since 
every event takes place according to fixed laws, 
the infinite intelligence must perceive what is 
free and contingent to be as certain in the course 
of future events as what is necessary or less con- 
tingent. The Stoics were accustomed to say 
that the actions of men were rendered certain, 
but not ^necessary, by the divine foreknowledge. 
[On this subject Augustine inquires, " Quid 
est praescientia, nisi scientia futurorum 1 Quid 
autem futurum est Deo, qui omnia supergreditur 
tempora ] Si enim scientia Dei, res ipsas habet, 
non sunt eifuturse sed prsesentes ; ac per hoc non 
jam praescientia, sed tantum scientia dici po- 
test," De diversis quaest. 1. ii. Cf. Boethius, 
De consol. philos, 1. v. pr. 6. " Scientia Dei 
omnem temporis supergressa motioriem, in su« 
manet simplicitate prsesentiae, infinitaque prae- 
teriti ac futuri spatia complectens, omnia quasi 
jam gerantur in sua simplici cognitione consi- 
derat. Itaque si prsescientiam pensare velis, 
qua cuncta dignoscit, non esse praeseientiam 
quasi futuri, sed scientiam nunquam deficientis 
instantiae, rectius aestimabis. Unde non prse- 
videntia, sed jorovidentia potius dicitur, quod 
porro ab rebus infimis constituta, quasi ab 
excelso rerum cacumine cuncta prospiciat."] 
Vide Leibnitz, Theodicee, under the titles, pre- 
vision and science de Dicu. Cf. Eberhard, Ver 
mischte Schriften, Num. 5, Verschiedeni Jufsdtze 
ilber die Freyheit des Willensi Halle, 1778, 8vo. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



l05 



Callisen, Beytrag die Lehre von der Allwissen- 
heit Gottes, und die Lehre von der menschlichen 
Freiheit in Harmonie zu bringen, in Schmidt's 
Bibliothek der theologischen Literatur, b. viii. 
s. 247; Giessen, 1805, 8vo. 

We can therefore bring no objection against 
the Bible, when it ascribes to God this scientia 
futurorum contingentium. Vide Psalm cxxxix. 
16, " Thou knewest the whole course of my life, 
when thou sawest me in the first stages of ex- 
istence." Cf. v. 2, "Thou understandest my 
thought afar off," — i. e., before I myself think 
it. Isaiah adduces it as a proof of the greatness 
of God, that he foresees and announces to his 
prophets those future contingent things which 
are beyond the reach of the human understand- 
ing, ch. xli. 26; xliv. 8; xlviii. 4 — 8. 

II. The Mode of the Divine Knowledge. 

The faculties which we possess for the acqui- 
sition of knowledge are very limited, and the 
knowledge which we acquire in the use of them 
is very imperfect. In forming conceptions, 
therefore, of the divine intelligence, we must ab- 
stract all those limitations which relate to time 
and space ; and in this way we obtain, for the 
most part, merely negative ideas. The difference 
between our understanding and that of God may 
be rendered evident by the following particu- 
lars : — 

1. Our knowledge is mostly derived from sen- 
sation, from which we obtain, either directly or 
indirectly, all our ideas. This is a limit beyond 
which we cannot pass ; and being such, it is 
wholly inapplicable to the mind of God. Our 
souls, in the present life, act and feel through 
the body and its senses. But as these do not 
belong to God, he cannot be supposed to have 
either sensation or passions. Vide Morus, p. 
54, s. 15, not. extr. 

2. Our knowledge is obtained gradually. We 
first receive our notions from sensation; we 
then treasure them in our memory ; and after- 
wards compare them with one another, and form 
judgments concerning them. We then proceed 
gradually, by means of the conclusions to which 
we have arrived, from one truth to another, at- 
taining sometimes to a probability in our know- 
ledge, but remaining often uncertain and wholly 
uninformed. But this process of acquisition is 
in various ways imperfect, and cannot, therefore, 
be attributed to God. He does not recollect 
what is past, nor form images or symbols in his 
mind, nor come to the conclusions of reason. 
He does not form abstract ideas ; for to his mind 
each particular thing is equally present; he re- 
gards all things with immediate intuition ; and 
is independent of the aid of memory. Every- 
thing like succession in knowledge must be 
absolutely excluded from the knowledge of God. 
This is called scientia simultanea ; and God is 

14 



said by the schoolmen to know immediate, sine 
discursu, uno actu. Vide Castner, Wie die allge- 
meinen Begriffe im gottlichen Verstande sind ; 
Altenburg, I~68. 

W T hen every imperfection is abstracted from 
the divine understanding, it appears, from what 
has been said, to surpass human understanding 
in the following respects: — (a) It is simulta- 
neous, — God knows by one act ,• (b) most true, 
without error or mistake ; (c) most clear, — with- 
out darkness or confusion ; (e?) most certain, — 
without doubt or ambiguity. 

But those who live in the sphere of sense, 
and are limited by time and space, are unable to 
form distinct conceptions of the perfection and 
immeasurableness of the divine understanding. 
There is, therefore, in all the languages of men, 
especially the more ancient, an entire destitution 
of terms which literally express these ideas ; 
and even had such terms existed in former 
times, they would have been unintelligible. 
There is no way, therefore, when this subject is 
mentioned, but to take language borrowed from 
the objects of sense, and to employ it with a 
purer and more refined meaning. This is the 
method of the Bible. It speaks of God as re- 
membering either in a good sense, meaning that 
he bestows favours after he has for a long time 
inflicted punishments, (e. g., Gen. viii. 1 ; Acts, 
x. 4;) or in a bad sense, meaning that he calls 
to mind — i. e., punishes, the sins of men, (e. g., 
Psalm xxv. 7; ciii. 9.) In the same manner it 
speaks of God as forgetting — i. e., leaving men 
without help, or suffering their sins to pass un- 
punished. It speaks too of his hoping and ex- 
pecting, and finding his hope and expectation, 
as it seems to us, disappointed. On the same 
principle, the terms taken from the bodily or- 
gans, through which we obtain all our know- 
ledge, are applied to God — e. g., run, yriy, ISsiv, 
axovsiv, which are synonymous with jrv, yivao- 
xsw, "v>n, SpEWCW, &c. 

M.orus, p. 46, s. 10. 

SECTION XXIII. 

OF THE OMNIPRESENCE OF GOD. 

I. Statement of the Doctrine. 

The omnipresence of God is that power by 
which he is able to act everywhere. This attri- 
bute, when correctly viewed, cannot be distin- 
guished from the divine omnipotence and omni- 
science taken in connexion; and so it is exhibit- 
ed by Morns. We justly conclude, that he who 
knows all things (s. 22), and whose power is 
so unlimited, that he does whatsoever he will 
(s. 21), must be present in all things, and can- 
not be separated from them by time or space. 

In thinking on this subject, we have need to 
guard against gross conceptions, and especially 



106 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



against the danger of predicating of God what 
can only be said of the presence of body. This 
caution is particularly necessary here, since we 
are apt to transfer the forms of time and space, 
which are applicable only to the sphere of sense, 
into the world of spirits ; and in so doing, to 
come to conclusions which are false and contra- 
dictory, and dishonourable to the purely spi- 
ritual nature of God. Vide s. 20, I. The fol- 
lowing points should be considered in reference 
to this subject: — 

1. Extension is not predicable of God, who 
is a Spirit. To say, therefore, that he is in infi- 
nite space, or, with Philo, the Cabbalists, and 
many modern writers, that he is himself infinite 
space, is altogether erroneous. Such expres- 
sions necessarily involve a material and limited 
nature. Space is a mode of thought, in which, 
as in a frame, we must range everything which 
belongs to the sphere of sense, but within which 
nothing relating to the spiritual or moral world 
can be brought. The omnipresence of God was 
often mentioned by the ancient philosophers 
who ascribed to him a corporeal nature, or who 
regarded him and the world as composing one 
whole. He was called by Novatianus and 
other Grecian writers, torioc, tW o7iwv, or >tov 
o^jov, locus omnium return ; and by the Rabbins, 
QipE, spatium universale. But this is an incor- 
rect notion of the divine omnipresence. Baier 
and many of xir older theologians spoke of the 
omnipresence of God as substantialis, or essen- 
tialis, in opposition to that which was merely 
operativa, or actualis. This substantial presence 
of God they called aSiastfcttfJa, or in Latin, in- 
distantia, or adessentia substantia divinae. These 
expressions, however, convey no distinct idea, 
and often lead to erroneous conceptions. 

[Note. — Some of the older theologians enter- 
tained the more scriptural opinion, that both the 
substantial and efficient presence of God were 
involved in his omnipresence. Thus Calovius 
defines the omnipresence of God to be that attri- 
bute, " vi cujus ille, non tantum substantia? pro- 
pinquitate, sed etiam efficacia ac operatione, 
adest creaturis omnibus." System, torn. ii. p. 
612. He adds, p. 613, " Omniprsesentia Dei 
est attributum ivEpyqfLxov, nee solum dSta^a- 
olav, indistantiam adessentise, sed etiam ivspyetav, 
operationem prseseniis Dei, subinfert." In this 
view of the subject Calovius was followed by 
Quenstedt, who writes that this attribute, "non 
solum essentiae divinee propinquitatem, sive 
adessentiam Dei ad creaturas, sed etiam opera- 
tionem quandam, importet." He therefore dis- 
tinguishes between the immensity and the omm- 
joresenceof God, the former of which he supposes 
to be absolute and eternal, the latter relative, 
and coeval only with the creation. 

Hahn remarks, that from the history of the 



various opinions which have prevailed respect- 
ing the omnipresence of God, it appears that 
most of the errors have arisen from confound- 
ing the ideas of body and substance. In doing 
this, our author has followed the example 
of Reinhard, Moms, Doederlein, and others, 
who adopted the philosophy of Leibnitz and 
Wolf. In denying to God a body, and thus 
avoiding the errors of pantheism, they seemed 
at the same time unconsciously to deny him 
substance, and to transmute him into an unessen- 
tial thought, and then to locate him somewhere 
beyond the limits of the universe, from whence 
he looks forth, and exerts his power upon all 
his works ; in which, therefore, he is no other- 
wise present than by his knowledge and agency.] 
2. By the presence of a spiritual being with 
us, we mean, that he thinks of us, and in this 
way acts upon us. But in order to this, we need 
not suppose his local presence, or the approxima- 
tion of the spiritual substance. We are present 
in spirit with an absent friend, when we think 
of him, and thus act upon him. Paul says, 1 
Cor. V. 3, artCjv T?q> tfw | u.a?'&, rtapdtv Sh i?c> Ttvtv\).wti< ) 
cf. v. 4. We see thus that our minds have an 
agency, and an agency different from that of 
matter, though we are ignorant of the mode of 
their operation. How, then, can we hope to 
understand the manner in which God acts? 
From what we observe of the operation of our 
own minds, we may, however, reason with re- 
spect to God, if we are on our guard against 
transferring to him the imperfection and limita- 
tions which we perceive in ourselves. He sees 
and knows all things ; nor is he removed from 
objects extrinsic to himself in respect either of 
time or space, as we are, the operation even of 
whose minds is limited by the sphere of sense, 
to which we are chained by our connexion with 
our bodies. The power of his Spirit, or rather, 
the power of him, as the most perfect Spirit, is 
infinite; that of our spirits, finite. He therefore 
understands and controls all things; which is 
the same as to say, he is present in all things. 
If we attempt to go beyond this, we fall at once 
into fruitless subtilties. We should be content 
to say with Morus, De'us rebus prsesens, est Deus 
in res a gens. 

II. The Scriptural Representations. 

These are accordant with the views which we 
have here expressed. The Bible exhibits this 
attribute of God in such a manner as to lead us 
to reverence his character, to place our confi- 
dence in him, and to walk circumspectly before 
him. And it accomplishes this practical end 
without the aid of metaphysical subtilties. In 
Psalm exxxix. 7 — 10, the knowledge and power 
of God are mentioned in close and inseparable 
connexion with his presence — " Whither shall 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



107 



I go from thy spirit? If I ascend up into hea- 
ven, thou art there; if I dwell in the uttermost 
parts of the sea, even there shall thy band lead 
me, and thy right hand shall hold me." The 
omniscience and omnipresence of God are con- 
nected in the same manner in Jer. xxiii. 23, 24, 
" Am I a God who is near, and far from no one ; 
and can any hide himself in secret places that I 
shall not see him I" For other passages, cf. 
Morus, p. 52, and Hahn, S. 188, s. 43. 

The Bible contains some figurative represen- 
tations of the omnipresence of God, which are 
indeed perfectly adapted to popular discourse, 
but which seem, if not properly understood, to 
contradict the true idea of this attribute. Among 
these representations we may mention the fol- 
lowing: — 

1. God fills Qkp) heaven and earth — i. e., the 
universe. Vide Jer. xxiii. 24. This representa- 
tion does not involve the notion of that spiritual 
extension of which the Rabbins and some of the 
schoolmen speak, but is intended to expose the 
error then prevalent in the east, that God dwelt 
in heaven, removed from the affairs of the world, 
and unconcerned in what might befal the chil- 
dren of men. 

2. He dwells in heaven, or in his temple. We 
find it very difficult to conceive that it should 
be otherwise with the presence of God than with 
our bodily presence. We cannot understand 
how it is, that his presence should not bear 
some relation to a particular place, or how it 
should be possible for him to be at the same 
time in different places. We are under the neces- 
sity of using expressions borrowed from space, 
because it is a form cf thought inherent in our 
minds. But we should always remember that 
these expressions, in application to God and 
divine things, are figurative. Accordingly, 
we represent God, in general, as at least more 
present in one place than in another ; we make 
him in our apprehensions to resemble ourselves ; 
and are unable to conceive that he should act 
upon nature, when at a great remove, or that he 
should not be materially present, although invi- 
sible, wherever his power is exerted. We 
therefore assign to him an abode, where he is 
at least eminently present. 

(a) He dwells in heaven. There he gives 
the most awful displays of his power, in the 
lightnings and flying tempests, and thence he 
sends down the most visible marks of his favour 
in the light and vital warmth of the sun. The 
heavens are therefore called the palace, throne, or 
temple of God; and the earth, in contradistinction, 
his footstool. For this reason, the face and hands 
were directed heavenwards in prayer, and the 
temples and altars of God were built upon 
mountains and hills. What is intended by these 
figurative representations may be literary ex- 



pressed after the example wh ch is given even 
in the scriptures, by the phrase, God is exalted 
over all. We sometimes find the phrase, he diuells 
on high, instead of the phrase, he dwells in hea- 
ven. Vide Psalm cxv. 3 ; Job, xvi. 19. 

(6) He dwells in his temple, which is some- 
times called his dwelling-place. The Jews be- 
lieved that prayer offered there, where they sup- 
posed God to be specially present among his 
worshippers, would be more certainly heard 
than when offered elsewhere; and they there- 
fore turned their faces and hands thitherward 
when absent from Jerusalem. They represent- 
ed God as sitting on a throne above the ark of 
the covenant, and placing his feet upon its lid. 
This representation, which occurs frequently in 
the Bible, and especially in the Old Testament, 
was doubtless believed literally by some of the 
Jews. The prophets, however, improved every 
opportunity of teaching them to raise their 
thoughts above the mere sensible representation, 
and to connect with these figures those just and 
worthy apprehensions of God which they were 
intended to convey. At the consecration of the 
temple, (1 Kings, viii. 27,) Solomon inquires, 
" But will God indeed dwell on the earth ] Be- 
hold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot 
contain thee; how much less this house that I 
have builded V Cf. Is. lxvi. 1, and Acts, xvii. 
24, ovx Iv ^Etportot^T'otj vaois xaifoixsi. Even 
Homer appears to have had some just views of 
the presence of God. In II. xvi. 515, Glaucus 
thus addresses Apollo : 

KACSi, aval, °S nov Awritfj £" niovi Srifioy 
Etj, r) ivi Tpoiy 6vvaaai 6e aii ttcivtos' dicoveiv. 

The opinion of some of the Jews that God 
could be rightly worshipped only at Jerusalem, 
which was contradicted by Christ, (John, iv. 
20 — 24,) originated partly from their erroneous 
views of the presence of God, and partly from 
that prejudice so dishonourable to him, that they 
alone had any title to his love and favour. 

3. He approaches his people, or withdraws 
from them. These also are figurative expres- 
sions, adapted to popular discourse. When they 
wished to describe God as knowing anything 
perfectly, they said, he drew near, and closely in- 
spected it. The representation that God draws 
near to any one, or dwells with him, is also used 
to designate the support, love, and special 
favour of God, Psalm xci. 15 ; Matt, xxviii. 20 ; 
John, xiv. 23, 24. It likewise denotes the 
hearing of prayer, Matt, xviii. 20. On the 
other hand, when God is said to withdraw from 
his people, and to be far off, the meaning is, 
that he withholds his assistance and support, 
and leaves them helpless. Cf. s. 22, ad finem. 
and Morus, p. 52, note 4. Cf. Morus, p. 51, 
seq. s. 14. 



103 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION XXIV. 

THE WISDOM OF GOD. 

I. Statement of the Doctrine. 

This attribute of God, as well as his omni- 
presence, stands in the closet connexion with 
his omniscience, and can be directly derived 
from it. The omniscience of God implies that 
he possesses the clearest knowledge of the con- 
nexion of all things, and therefore of their rela- 
tions as means and ends, and this knowledge is 
commonly called wisdom. And because God pos- 
sesses the most perfect knowledge of this kind 
he is said to possess supreme wisdom. He is ac- 
cordingly styled by Paul, (1 Tim. i. 17), /xovog 
6o$6$, the all-wise, sapientissimus ; cf. Jude, v. 
25. The wisdom of God implies two things : — 

1. God proposes to himself the best ends 
(fines, consilia.) The question is here asked, 
what is the end of God in the creation and pre- 
servation of the world ] The earlier theologians 
generally assign the glory and majesty of God as 
the final cause of the creation, and refer to the 
texts which speak of him as doing everything 
for his own glory — i. e., that it might be seen 
and acknowledged. And we may say, indeed, 
that in relation to men and other rational beings, 
who are bound to acknowledge the glory of God, 
this is one end of the creation. But glory, in 
itself considered, cannot be looked upon as the 
sole, universal end, for which the world exists. 
For God himself can be in nothing dependent 
on the glory which others ascribe to him, nor 
can he receive any increase of honour from their 
praises. Other theologians, therefore, say that 
the welfare of men was the object of God in the 
creation of the world. This may be true, if it 
is not understood to mean that God created 
everything solely for this object. It were judg- 
ing very proudly concerning ourselves and very 
poorly concerning God to suppose that he pro- 
posed to himself no other object than this, and 
had created everything for our sake who consti- 
tute so small a part of the boundless universe. 
We prefer the following answer to this ques- 
tion : The end of God in the creation of the world 
was to impart to all his creatures that degree of 
perfection of which they are severally suscepti- 
ble; in accomplishing this end he employs the 
most suitable means, and thus displays before 
our eyes his wisdom, power, and goodness. 
This is what is meant when it is said in the 
scriptures, he made every thing for his own glory. 
We should learn the majesty and glorious attri- 
butes of the Creator from the creatures of his 
hand. But this can be done only by moral 
beings like ourselves. Vide Psalm xix., et 
alibi. Cf. s. 18, I. Note. Also s. 48, IV. 
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 271. Bretschneider, Hand- 
buch, band. i. s. 584. 



2. He chooses the best means (media, instru- 
menta) for the attainment of these ends. Ho 
not only knows, as omniscient, what the best 
means are, but is able, as omnipotent, to employ 
them. In the choice of means he cannot be de- 
ceived, since he is omniscient, and consequently 
infallible. Hence he will never choose unsuit- 
able, ineffective, or injurious means; nor will 
he employ means which are superfluous, or 
more than are necessary for the attainment of 
his object in the shortest way. To suppose this 
would be to impeach his omniscience. This is 
sometimes expressed as follows : God acts by 
the rule of economy, (ex lege seconomiae;) Deum 
ire via brevissimd ; according to the axiom : 
Quod fieri potest per pauca, non debet fieri per 
plura. That God acts upon this maxim, both 
in the material and moral world, we see from 
innumerable observations. But since we are 
unable to survey the whole system of things we 
cannot and should not presume to decide in 
given cases what might be the shortest way and 
what might be the best means for attaining the 
divine ends. Many things appear to us useless, 
unsuitable, or superfluous. The observation of 
Paul, (1 Corinthians, i. 25,) that even those 
actions and works of God which appear to us 
foolish and unwise far surpass all human wis- 
dom is abundantly confirmed both in the physi- 
cal and moral world. Vide Reimarus, Abha'nd- 
lungen iiber die Wahrheiten der naturlichen 
Religion, s. 206 ; and Jacobi, Betrachtungen 
iiber die weisen Absichten Gottes, 4 thle. Hano- 
ver, 1765, 8vo. The science in which the ends 
and objects of God are investigated is called 
teleology. Vide s. 15, 68, ad finem. 

II. Scriptural Representations. 

The doctrine of the wisdom of God is in a 
high degree practical. It is calculated to inspire 
our hearts with pious, thankful, and reverential 
feelings towards God. It offers to us an unfail- 
ing source of consolation and peace in the 
midst of our cares and sufferings, and is there- 
fore frequently exhibited by the sacred writers. 
The most important texts relating to this attri- 
bute may be divided into two classes. 

1. The texts which treat of our knowledge 
of the wisdom of God derived from the creation 
and preservation of the physical world. These 
are, Psalm civ., especially ver. 24 ; Prov. iii. 
19, seq. ; Is. xl. 13, seq. ; also Prov. viii. 
22 — 30, where the wisdom of God is personi- 
fied, and in w T hich Solomon bestows upon it all 
possible praises, and shews that it is that attri- 
bute by which God so especially glorifies him- 
self in the creation and preservation of the 
world. In the preceding and succeeding con- 
text he describes folly and ignorance by way of 
contrast. 

2. The texts which treat of the wisdom or 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



109 



God as displayed in the various institutions of 
the moral world, especially those which he has 
established to promote the moral perfection and 
happiness of the human race. For moral per- 
fection, and the happiness which stands in an 
immediate connexion with it, are the ultimate 
destination of men and of all moral creatures. 
The writers of the New Testament especially 
love to dwell upon these great plans of God. 
Christ says, (Matt. xi. 19,) ^ oo^ia (&sov) s8t- 
xai^rj drto <tZ>v tsxvav avtns — i. e., the wisdom 
of God (as displayed in the calling and prepara- 
tion of teachers, and in the publication of their 
doctrines) is approved by all the wise. Paul 
says the same respecting the wisdom of God as 
displayed in the Christian doctrine so generally 
condemned at that time, 1 Cor. i. ii. Those 
very doctrines which appeared the most revolt- 
ing to Jews and heathen contained, in his 
view, the greatest proof of the divine wisdom. 
He calls the doctrine of redemption aofyla, by 
way of eminence, (1 Cor. 1. 25, seq. coll. Rom. 
xi. 33 ;) although it appeared foolishness to men. 
Morns, p. 47, note 7. A taste for these moral 
subjects, and a perception of the wisdom of God 
in the provisions he has made for the moral 
improvement and for the recovery of our race, 
is, as it were, the test by which we can judge 
of the decrree of moral improvement to which 
any one has attained. He who has no taste for 
these objects has made as yet but little pro- 
gress; for the Bible assures us that the most 
pure and perfect of the moral creatures of God 
— the angels in heaven, admire the wisdom dis- 
played in his plan for the redemption of men, 
and ponder them with delight, and inquire into 
them with earnestness, Ephes. iii. 10; 1 Pet. 
i. 12. In Col. ii. 3, Paul says that in this plan 
lie concealed all the treasures of the wisdom of 
God. 

Note. — The Hebrew DDn, and the Greek <so§6$, 
signified originally, skilful, expert, and were 
applied especially to artificers ; cf. Ex. xxxi. 3 ; 
Homer. II. xv. 412. They signified, seconda- 
rily, able and knowing in any way. Thus 
nipsn are dodi, Eccl. i. 18; Is. xix. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
i. 20, (rtoij (jo$6j; rtov 'ypofi/io.T'fci;?.) They came 
gradually to have that more general significa- 
tion which belongs to them in all the ancient 
languages. The same is true of the correspond- 
ing substantives nrsn, and <so$lu. 

SECTION XXV. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS RESPECTING THE NA- 
TURE AND PERFECTIONS OF THE DIVINE WILL. 

I. What is meant by the Will of God. 

We derive our notions and expressions re- 
specting this divine attribute, as well as the 
others, from what we know of the human soul ; 



rejecting here, as before, all imperfection. 
This is the only way in which we can come to 
a knowledge of God. Vide s. 18, ad finem. 
Now we ascribe to the human soul two powers, 
or rather, a twofold modification and exercise of 
its power — viz., thinking and choosing, or intel- 
ligence and will. And we call the attributes of 
God which are analogous to these by the same 
name. Of the understanding of God, and of 
the attributes in which it is principally deve- 
loped, we have before treated. We now come 
to speak of the divine will, and the attributes 
which belong to it. The will with us is de- 
pendent upon the understanding. We are said 
to will, when we feel an inclination for any- 
thing which appears agreeable, and disinclina- 
tion for anything which appears disagreeable. 
And it is the same with God. What the will 
either of men or of God is, must be learned 
from its effects, or by the actions. 

The following words are used in the Bible to 
designate the will of God. sen and the sub- 
stantive i*sn; also nsi, and the substantive pin. 
The former words are translated in the Septna- 
gint by ^'xco, j3ov%.ofiai, ^i^/xa, j3ot>?^, and the 
latter by evSoxtiv and sv8oxla. The last word 
often denotes the sovereignty, or rather, the 
freedom of the divine will (rrfir px>) These 
are the senses, therefore, in which these words 
are used by the Hellenistic Jews, and the 
writers of the New Testament. Cf. Ephes. i. 
II ; Ps. cxv. 3. These words, moreover, often 
designate the thing itself which God reveals as 
his will, or which he commands by his pre- 
cepts ; as, yev'^ritco to ^teTiyj/j-d aov, Luke, xi. 2. 
Cf. Ephes. v. 17 ; Romans, xii. 2. Bov?.r t ®tov 
(mrr xsn, Is. liii. 10,) means the decree of God, 
or his plan for the good of men ; and so denotes, 
by way of eminence, the dispensation of grace 
through Christ, Acts, xx. 27, coll. ver. 20. Con- 
nected with this, there is one more signification 
of these words, which deserves to be noticed. 
When the verbs volendi and eligendi are con- 
strued, in Hebrew with 3, or in Greek with lv 
or stj, (as e 2 san or nrn, and evSoxslv lv tivi,) 
they signify, to be well-disposed towards any one, 
to love him, to shew him favour ; i. q., bene cupere, 
velle, to wish well; also, to like to do anything; 
in short, i. q., $ckslv. Indeed, the latter word 
is used in Luke, xx. 46, instead of S&uv, which 
occurs in the parallel text, Mark, xii. 38. The 
same meaning, to love, to have pleasure in a thing, 
belongs also to ^i%eiv with the accusative, Matt, 
xxvii. 43. Hence ^i%rj/xa, fiovKiq, svboxia, often 
signify the gracious will of God, his benevolence, 
the proofs which he gives us of his friendship. 

II. Divisions of the Will of God, and Divine 

Decrees. 
The will of God that anything exterior to him- 
self should take place, is called his determina- 
K 



110 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



tion, or decree. Morus, p. 51, note. The ob- 
jects of the divine will are as many and various 
as the objects of the divine knowledge. Cf. s. 
22, 1. For God, like all rational beings, chooses 
only such things as are perceived by his under- 
standing to be good. His will, therefore, as well 
as f hat of others, depends always upon his know- 
ledge. And he chooses or rejects, as the objects 
which are presented to his mind appear in his 
judgment desirable or otherwise. Since now 
his knowledge is the most perfect, his will must 
be the best. 

God is frequently represented in the Bible as 
favourably inclined towards all men, and as de- 
siring their happiness. But in some passages 
it seems to be intimated that he does not desire 
the welfare of some men, but, on the contrary, 
their condemnation. Now, many things which 
we, in our philosophical style, should say took 
place under the divine permission, or with the 
distant concurrence of his will, were ascribed 
by the ancient world to the immediate agency 
and express decree of God. Traces of this com- 
mon opinion appear in Homer and other ancient 
writers. Passages occur which exhibit the most 
exalted and worthy conceptions of the Deity, 
while other passages ascribe to him the design- 
ing and performance of such actions as are in- 
consistent with his perfections. Those of the 
latter kind, which occur in the holy scriptures, 
being taken by themselves, and considered by 
those who were unacquainted with this ancient 
mode of thinking and speaking, were made to 
contain a sense which was never intended by 
the original writers. This mistake gave rise to 
the vehement controversies respecting predesti- 
nation, which continued in the Romish church 
from the fifth even to the eighteenth century, 
and which raged with great violence between 
the Lutheran and Reformed churches, especially 
during the seventeenth century. In the progress 
of these controversies it was found convenient, 
in order to remove the apparent contradiction in 
these texts, and to render the whole subject more 
intelligible, to introduce various divisions into 
the divine will. The following are the most 
common : — 

1 . Antecedens and consequens. Voluntas ante- 
cedens is also called prima, or primitiva; and 
voluntas consequens is called secunda, finalis, or 
decretoria. This division is very ancient, and 
occurs not only in John of Damascus, in the 
eighth century, (since whose time it has been 
always preserved by the schoolmen,) but even 
in Chrysostom, in the fourth century, who dis- 
tinguishes between ^th^ixa rtputov and Sevtspov, 
rtpowyovuzvov and S7i6fjt£vov 9 (Homel, I., in 
Ephes.,) and who is said by Semler to have de- 
rived it from Plato. This division is derived 
from the analogy of the human mind. We pos- 
sess a certain original bias, or impulse, which, 



as long as it is not directed to any particular ob- 
ject, is called voluntas antecedens animi hurnani ; 
but as soon as it is directed to definite objects, 
is called voluntas consequens. Thus love and 
hate, while not directed to particular objects, 
belong to the former; when so directed, to the 
latter. If we apply this to God, we say that he 
wills the happiness and perfection of all his 
creatures by his voluntas antecedens; and that 
he makes application of this general will to 
particular objects, by his voluntas consequens. 
Now when God bestows upon any individual 
all the good of which he is susceptible, he i3 
said to treat him according to his consequent or 
determining will. This voluntas consequens is 
therefore principally exhibited in the decrees of 
God. These two volitions thus often differ in 
their results, although they do not clash among 
themselves; although there maybe succession 
in the objects of the divine will, there can be no 
succession in his will itself; for as God knows, 
so he wills everything instantaneously. Now, 
if I say God wills to make all men happy, (1 
Tim. ii. 4,) this is, in the language of the 
schools, the voluntas antecedens Dei — the end or 
object of God ; but if I add the distinction, that 
he actually bestows this happiness only on the 
pious, they alone being susceptible of it, (Mark, 
xvi. 16,) this is the voluntas consequens. God, 
then, ex voluntate antecedente, wills the happiness 
of all men, without exception ; but, ex voluntate 
consequente, he wills the condemnation of the 
wicked. 

With regard to the propriety of this division 
we would say, that so far as it helps us to under- 
stand and express many things relating to the 
attributes, decrees, and providence of God, it 
may be allowed, if what is intended by it be 
considered, and not the form of expression. 
For the language in which it is expressed is very 
inconvenient, and conveys the idea of succes- 1 
sion and mutability in the divine decrees. 
Literally understood it involves a contradiction ; 
for God never, in fact, willed a thing which he 
is said to have willed antecedenter, but which 
has never taken place consequenier ; since he has 
no ends which he does not attain. This lan- 
guage must be understood, therefore, to represent 
this thing as it appears to us. Vide Tollner, 
Vermischte Aufsatze, Samml. II., No. I. Kann 
Gott Endzwecke haben, die er nicht erreicht] 

2. Voluntas absoluta, and conditionata or ordi- 
nata. This division relates principally to the 
will of God in regard to moral beings. He is 
said to will absolutely when he determines any- 
thing without connecting it with a condition, 
or, which is the same thing, without having re- 
spect to the free actions of moral beings. Thus, 
for example, he frequently allots the external 
condition of particular men, or of whoie nations, 
without reference to their moral worth. Vide 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



Ill 



Rom. ix. On the other hand he wills condition- 
ally when he determines anything on certain 
conditions, or in respect to the free actions of 
moral beings. Thus he declares 6 stus-tsvaas 
oco^7Jff£T'afc• 6 8' 0.7116? rfi as xa'taxp&r.Gstcu, Mark, 
xvi. 16. When the annexed condition is ful- 
filled on our part, and the will of God thus ac- 
complished, his will is said to be efficacious 
(efficax); when the condition is not fulfilled, 
and the thing falls out differently from what 
God appeared to have designed, his will is said 
to be ineffectual (non efficax.) Here again the 
language employed is very inconvenient; for 
God always willed that which he foresaw would 
take place, and never willed that which he fore- 
saw would not take place. Many other divi- 
sions have been adopted by theologians, to all 
of which the remarks made at the close of the 
first division may be applied. Vide Morus, p. 
47, s. 11, p. 51, s. 13, note. 

SECTION XXVI. 

OF THE FREEDOM, IMMUTABILITY, AND EFFICACY 
OF THE DIVINE WILL. 

I. The Freedom of the Divine Will. 

1. What is meant by the freedom of the di- 
vine will (libertas voluntatis, arbitrium Dei), 
and why is this attribute ascribed to God 1 

To us in our present circumstances, as related 
to the two spheres of sense and spirit, this sub- 
ject is encompassed with difficulties. To in- 
vestigate and remove these difficulties is not, 
however, so much the province of theology as 
of philosophy. The latter has of late done much 
towards clearing up the ground, by the inqui- 
ries instituted in the critical school. If by free- 
dom is meant a power of choosing between dif- 
ferent objects presented to the mind, without 
any motive for the choice of one rather than an- 
other, then the will of God is not free. But 
freedom is not such a power, and to act in this 
way is not to act/ree/y but arbitrarily, pro lubitu, 
arbitrio, ut stet pro ratione voluntas ; and to sup- 
pose this of God is to ascribe to him the greatest 
imperfection, and to transform him into a fearful 
tyrant, who pardons or condemns without reason, 
and may thus make the pious eternally misera- 
ble, and the wicked eternally happy. The 
freedom of a moral being consists rather in his 
being able to choose and to act according to his 
views, without being forced to do otherwise, 
either from an internal or external necessity ; 
but he cannot choose without having a motive 
for his choice. For every act of the will in a 
moral being there must be some ground, and 
this ground is to be sought in the understanding. 
The understanding discerns what is good and 
bad ; this knowledge awakens affection or aver- 
se; this, in its turn 5 moves the will to elect or 



reject; and the will then determines itself to act 
accordingly. Whenever, then, any one has 
chosen according to the dictates of his under- 
standing, without feeling compulsion from with- 
in or from without, he has willed freely ; and if 
under the same circumstances he has acted, he 
has then acted freely. But, on the contrary, 
when he has been compelled to choose or to act 
by passions from within, or by unconquerable 
difficulties or irresistible power from without, 
he has not willed or acted freely. 

Freedom of will and action, thus explained, 
must necessarily and in the highest degree be- 
long to God, as a pure moral being; in such a 
manner, however, as not to imply any succession 
of acts in his mind, s. 25. This freedom must 
be ascribed to him, (1) because he is a spiritual 
being, and possessed of the purest moral will. 
Vide s. 19. We regard it as the greatest per- 
fection that we and other moral beings are able 
to choose and act freely, and as the greatest im- 
perfection to be compelled to choice and action 
either from within or from without. We there- 
fore justly conclude, via eminentix, that God 
must choose and act with the highest degree of 
freedom. (2) Because he is perfectly inde- 
pendent, which he could not be without freedom. 
Throughout the sphere of sense the law of ne- 
cessity prevails ; but in the moral world, the 
law of freedom. In the former, everything is 
limited, conditioned, and subjected to the vicis- 
situdes of time and space ; but everything in the 
latter is unlimited, free, and independent of time 
and space. Of this moral world we ourselves 
are members in the better portion of our nature, 
and as such we are possessed of freedom and 
are capable of understanding what it is, although 
our connexion with the bodily world makes it 
difficult for us not only to exercise it, but even 
to obtain any clear conception of its nature. 
(3) Because he is the creator, preserver, and 
wise ruler of the world, which character he could 
not sustain unless he were possessed of freedom. 
He has so constituted and ordered the world 
that none of his creatures are able to disturb or 
destroy it with all their skill or power. Cf. 
what was said respecting the omnipotence and 
the wisdom of God, s. 21, 24. 

Against this view of the subject the objection 
has sometimes been made, that God never can 
act otherwise than from a regard to the ends 
which he has in view, and can only choose what 
is the best; that he thus acts and chooses neces" 
sarily, and that necessity therefore must be 
predicated of him instead of freedom. But there 
is a fallacy in this argument, arising from the 
improper use of words. That is here supposed 
to be necessary which has its ground in the es- 
sential and infallible knowledge of God. He, 
like every ether rational spirit, chooses only 
what his understanding acknowledges as good. 



112 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Since now his understanding is infallible, and 
he sees everything as it actually is, his choice 
is called necessary, and not at all because it re- 
sults from any compulsion. The human under- 
standing is subject to mistake, and our choice 
is frequently free only in appearance ; but always 
to will and to do that which the understanding 
discerns as best is the highest degree of freedom 
in a moral being. 

2. The doctrine of the Bible respecting the free- 
dom of the divine will. 

This rests upon the principles above stated, 
and is to be explained in the same way ; espe- 
cially as far as it relates to the freedom with 
which God bestows or withholds his favours. 
In the ancient languages, however, there were 
no definite terms answering to the pure idea of 
freedom; and if there had been such terms in- 
vented for the use of the schools of philosophy, 
they would have been ill adapted to popular in- 
struction. But they had not learned, at that 
early period, to discriminate with sufficient ac- 
curacy between their ideas, and they therefore 
often employed words which indicate caprice to 
express the idea of freedom. We observe, how- 
ever, that just conceptions on this subject are 
found everywhere in the Bible, although they 
are expressed in popular rather than in philoso- 
phical language. So, when God is said in the 
Bible to bestow blessings when he will, and to 
be severe when he. will, the meaning is, not that 
he acts like a tyrant, in passion, or according to 
blind caprice, but that he does that which in his 
infinite wisdom he sees to be best. Thus 1 Cor. 
xii. 11 ; Isaiah, xlv. 9, 10. We regard human 
rulers as happy on account of the great freedom 
they possess, and their independence of external 
control ; they possess the right of pardoning, of 
condemning, &c. Now the popular language 
of the Bible ascribes to God this unlimited use 
of freedom, which we consider as the prerogative 
of earthly princes and rulers. But this language 
must be interpreted in such a way as not to in- 
volve those imperfections which belong only to 
men. From this language it must not be sup- 
posed that when God pardons or condemns ac- 
cording to his own will, he acts, as human rulers 
often do, from passion or caprice ; for there is no 
true freedom where the will is not obedient to 
the understanding. When God, therefore, pros- 
pers and exalts one particular individual or a 
whole nation, and afflicts and depresses another, 
in so doing he acts freely — i. e., for wise reasons, 
though they may be inscrutable to us, and not 
from wilfulness or caprice. But from the fact 
that Ave cannot see the reasons for what God 
does, we are sometimes disposed to think that 
he has none in his own mind, and that he acts 
in an arbitrary manner ; and as we think we 
usually express ourselves. The popular lan- 
guage, therefore, which seems to affirm that God 



decides and acts in an arbitrary manner, often 
means no more than that we are ignorant of the 
reasons which influence his decisions and con- 
duct. Vide Morus, p. 51, note. And in this 
sense God's government, even in the intellectual 
and moral world, is free; to one people he gives 
more religious knowledge and more advantages 
for mental improvement, to another less ; and 
what he bestows at one time he takes away at 
another. Cf. Ephes. i. 4 — 14. To us short- 
sighted beings there often appears to be some- 
thing unjust, contradictory, and inexplicable in 
all this. At such times there is nothing more 
quieting than the firm conviction that God wills 
and acts with the most perfect freedom — i. e., 
according to the views of his understanding, by 
which he always knows infallibly what is best. 
The passage Rom. ix. is one of the most im- 
portant in relation to this subject. Paul here 
contends against the error of the Jews, that God 
preferred their nation to all others, and looked 
upon them with exclusive favour. The Jews be- 
lieved that God could not reject them, and could 
not transfer to others the blessings he had be- 
stowed upon them. Paul undertakes to shew 
that, on the contrary, God proceeded freely in 
the dispensation of his benefits; that he did not 
govern himself by the supposed deserts or the 
personal efforts of men ; and that men could not 
presume in this matter to prescribe to him, or 
to complain of his government. Verse 11, Iva 
vj xat ixXoy-qv rtpoS-stftj tov ®sov f-ivrj — i. e., the 
will of God (ix%oyri, libertas in eligendo, as Jo- 
seph us uses it) must be acknowledged to be 
free. (Cf. the phrase fu&m'a ^fX-/j / ttaT'oj, Eph. 
i. 5, 11,) Ver. 7, seq., Abraham had many chil- 
dren, but Isaac only received the promise. Ver. 
10, seq., Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, 
born at the same time. God made the posterity 
of the one to be subject to that of the other. 
From these and other examples Paul now con- 
cludes, ver. 18, that God 6v ^rihet, etesl' ov 5a 
$£"kei, axhrjpvvsi, (Job, xxxix. 16.) Cf. ver. 15, 
iterfiio ov dv £h$w, xal olxtsiprfico ov dv olxtsopco, 
quoted from Exod. xxxiii. 19, I bestow bless- 
ings at pleasure (pro lubitu), on whomsoever I 
will, according to my infallible wisdom. Paul 
afterwards, ver. 22, mentions some reasons why 
God frequently proceeds in this way. He does 
so sometimes, to deter men from wickedness, by 
a display of his anger, or in some manner to pro- 
mote the general good; but should we in any 
case be unable to discover these reasons, we 
must humbly acquiesce in the divine will, ver. 
20, 21. This passage, therefore, does not treat 
of the predestination of particular men to happi- 
ness or misery by an absolute decree. This pre- 
destination is not absolute, but dependent on the 
fulfilment of certain conditions on the part of 
man. In this passage Paul is speaking of the 
general government of the world, and of the oi- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



113 



dering of tne external circumstances of indivi- 
duals and nations ; and he says that in this mat- 
ter God is not confined to those rules by which 
we might think his conduct should be regulated. 
He acts on principles and maxims which, though 
perfectly wise, are often wholly beyond our com- 
prehension. Vide Noesselt, Opusc. ad Inter. 
S.S. — Interpr. Gramm. c. ix. ep. ad Rom. — 
Fasc. 1, p. 125, seq. 

II. Immutability of the Divine Will. 
The immutability of the will of God results 
from that of his nature ; vide s. 20, ad finem. 
Since his will is always founded upon his per- 
fect knowledge, and his judgment is infallible 
with regard to whatever it may relate, he cannot 
be supposed to fluctuate in his choice. The mu- 
tability of the human will is owing to the un- 
certainty and defectiveness of human knowledge. 
The Bible often speaks of the unchangeableness 
of the divine will. Psalm xxxiii. 10, 11, " Je- 
hovah bringeth the counsel of the heathen to 
nought; but his counsel standeth for ever." 
Ps. cxix. 89 — 91, Rom. xi. 29, afistafii^rjta 
Xapicifxata ®sov. 1 Sam. xv. 29, " He is not a 
man, that he should repent ;" coll. s. 20. When 
therefore we meet with texts in which God is 
said to lepent, (as Gen. vi. 7,) or in which he is 
said to have done differently from his intentions, 
(aslsa. xxxviii. 1, seq.; Jonah, iii. 9,) we must 
interpret them so as to be consistent with his per- 
fections ; for Moses and the prophets well knew 
that God was not a man, that he should repent, Num. 
xxiii. 19. These representations become consist- 
ent when we consider that whenever an event 
occurred otherwise than had been expected, or af- 
fairs took a turn, under the divine government or 
permission, different from what had been com- 
mon in human experience, then, in the customary 
dialect of antiquity, God was said to repent and 
alter his purpose. 

III. Efficacy of the Divine Will. 

Whatever God wills, that he can accomplish ,■ 
and his power has no limitations. And this is 
his omnipotence, which, as a necessary attribute 
of the divine nature, was considered in s. 21. 

SECTION XXVII. 

GENERAL REMARKS ON THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES 
OF THE DIVINE WILL. 

1. We ascribe truth or veracity to God, so far 
as whatever he reveals or declares, directly or 
indirectly, is true and certain, s. 28. 

2. We ascribe goodness or benevolence to God, 
so far as he is disposed to bestow upon his crea- 
tures all that happiness of which they are sus- 
ceptible; s. 28. 

3. We ascribe holiness to God, so far as he 
possesses all moral perfections, and consequent- 

15 



ly loves what is good, and hates what is evil ; 
s. 29. 

4. W r e ascribe justice to God, so far as he ex- 
hibits his love of goodness and hatred of wick- 
edness, in his dealings w 7 ith his creatures ; s. 
30, 31. 

Note. — Leibnitz, in his Theodicee, (p. ii. s. 
151,) considers the holiness of God as nothing 
else than his supreme goodness, or benevolence. 
In the same manner he explains the justice of 
God, and in this respect is followed by Wolf, 
Baumgarten, Eberhard, and many other modern 
philosophers and theologians, especially those 
belonging to the school of Wolf. The last-men- 
tioned writer, following the example of Leib- 
nitz, defines the justice of God, benignitas ad 
leges sapientiae temper ata; others define it still 
more briefly, the relative goodness of God. 

These philosophers were led thus to refine 
upon the idea of justice, by the desire to obviate 
the objections to which the common idea of it 
appeared to be exposed. There can be no doubt 
of the truth which they affirm, that the goodness 
of God is relative; and whenever we speak of 
the divine holiness or justice, we must proceed 
on the principle, that the goodness of God is 
always directed by his wisdom, and is always 
and wholly relative, since he bestows blessings 
upon his creatures in exact proportion to their 
susceptibility for receiving them. But whilo 
this is true, the definition of divine justice given 
by Leibnitz is not, considered as a definition, 
sufficiently precise and accurate, as Kant has 
shewn. Without going at large into the objec- 
tions which might be urged against it, it will be 
enough for our present purpose to observe, in the 
first place, that it is not sufficiently intelligible, 
and cannot be conveniently used, at least in 
popular instruction ; and, in the second place, 
that it does not exhibit the common idea con- 
nected with this term, which is of itself proof 
enough that it is not just as a definition. We 
feel at once, on hearing this definition, that there 
is something wanting to complete the idea. 
When we are contemplating the nature of God, 
we consider it, after the analogy of human be- 
ings, as different according to the different ob- 
jects about which it is employed. On this com- 
mon mode of conception the common use of lan- 
guage is built, and in conformity with this usage 
we must make a distinction between the good- 
ness, holiness, aud justice of God, especially as 
the scripture follows this common usage. Now 
the object of the holiness of God is, general, uni- 
versal good; of his justice and benevolence, the 
welfare of his creatures. We here see how 
closely connected these ideas are, and wha in- 
duced Leibnitz to define them as he did. But, 
following the general usage, we make the fol- 
lowing distinction in the employment of these 
terms : one is called good or benevolent who is 
k2 



114 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



inclined to benefit another, qui bene cupit, vult ; 
one is called holy, in respect to the purity and 
blamelessness of his disposition, — one who loves 
what is good, and hates what is evil, qui rede, 
sentit, sanctus est ; just, who acts according to 
this disposiiion, qui recti agit, and who there- 
fore actively exhibits his pleasure in what is 
good, and displeasure at what is evil. But 
since God has no other end but to promote the 
welfare of his creatures, he acts, even when he 
proceeds with justice, at the same time benevo- 
lently ,- and even those things which we call evils 
and punishments, from the manner in which they 
affect us, are only so many results and proofs 
of the divine goodness, as we shall shew here- 
after. 

SECTION XXVIII. 

OF THE VERACITY AND THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 

I. The Truth or Veracity of God. 

This attribute of God is sometimes divided 
into metaphysical (interna) and moral (externa). 
By the former is meant merely that he is the 
true God, in opposition to false, imaginary dei- 
ties ; and in this sense he is called nrsp&c, p^x Sx, 
Is. xlv. 21 ; ©so? a-k^ivos, 1 John, v. 20; John, 
xvii. 3. But we. here speak of the truth of God 
in the 7720/0/ sense ; and by this is meant that he 
is true in all which he declares or reveals, and 
that he does not alter from what he has once 
spoken; a8vvatov ^svaaoSao ®?6v, says Paul, 
Heb. vi. 18. This attribute is also designated 
in the Bible by the words nw, rattsi, P7.5, "R?% 
aXr^sca' and opposed to it is falsehood, varia- 
bleness in speech, trustlessness, *vur, ,xvj ; , dsto, 
■^iSof, x. t. ?.. This attribute implies, 

1. That the instruction which God gives us 
contains no untruths or contradictions. Hence 
it is called in the scriptures, xal s&ziqv, ton, I 
ax-faua' and Christ says, John, xvii. 17, o Xoyoj | 
6 565 a^Etct lati. Cf. Ps. xix. 8 ; cxix. 75, 138. 

2. That all the divine promises and commi- 
nations are sure, and will be accomplished with- 
out fail. Since the will of God is immutable, 
(s. 26, No. II.), whatever he has once an- 
nounced as his will must inevitably take place. 
So far as he fulfils his promise or threatening, 
he is called ittQ-td^, \ixti, and truth nps, rmp», 
rttVr'is, is ascribed to him. Ps. xxxiii. 4, "-The 
promise of the Lord is faithful, and everything 
which he does is truth." 2 Cor. i. 18, ma-tos 6 
0s6j, and ver. 20, " the divine promises which 
are given through Jesus Christ (iv avta, sc. 
XpitfT'o, ver. 19), are to vat, xal to a/xr t v — i. e M 
firm, sure. litotes ®sov is opposed to the artiGtla 
aj^pwrtcov, Rom. iii. 3. An important passage 
in this connexion is found in Ps. cxix. 89 — 91. 
This passage contains a proof of the certainty 
of the divine promise, and the immutability of 



the divine laws drawn from a comparison of 
them with the laws of the natural world. Sure 
and immutable as are the laws of the material 
world, so sure are those laws by which God 
proceeds in fulfilling his declarations, in reward- 
ing virtue and punishing vice; and foolisli as it 
would be to blame the former, equally foolish 
is it to blame the latter. Cf. Prov. viii. 22 — 2G. 

The Bible gives great prominence to this at- 
tribute of God, and justly, considering the in- 
fluence which a belief in it must have in pro- 
moting piety and godliness. Vide Heb. xi. 6, 
seq. ; Rom. iv. 3. This conviction, and the 
confidence flowing from it, is called by the very 
same name as the attribute itself, — viz., 7tlarti' 
the opposite of which is 07tiatla. But the Bible 
represents God as faithful in fulfilling his threats 
as well as his promises. Heb. iv. 12, is a class- 
ical text upon this subject. Zwv yap %6yo$ tov 
®sov, xal ivspyvjSi xal to ( aot£poj vrtkp 7ia6av jxdxai- 
pav Statouov, x. t. "K., xal xpi?ixb$ ev^vur^s^v xal 
ewoiujv xapStas, "The theatening of God, (xoyoj 
tov Qsov) is active and efficacious, (£wi> xal 
ivepyris, not vain and empty,) and sharper than 
any two edged sword, &c. ; and he sits in judg- 
ment on the thoughts and purposes of the heart." 
The gospel is not more full and explicit in its 
promises to those who comply with its condi- 
tions, than in its threatenings against those who 
reject them. 

Note. — Some passages of the Bible seem, at 
first view, to be inconsistent with the veracity 
of God. On this point we may remark that 
there are some truths which are not intended for 
all men of all ages, and which would do more 
hurt than good if exhibited indiscriminately, 
without regard to the circumstances of those to 
whom they may be addressed. The question 
therefore arises, whenever we undertake to in- 
struct our fellow-men, whether this or that 
truth will be useful to them ; whether they are 
able to bear it ; or whether, considering their 
circumstances, it may not do them more hurt 
than good 1 ? To teach men those truths which 
they are not prepared to receive, is like putting 
useful instruments into the hands of a child, 
who can turn them to no account, and may per- 
haps injure himself by using them, and is there- 
fore inconsistent with true prudence, and with 
an enlightened regard for their welfare. This 
is a maxim which must be adopted by all who 
engage in the work of instruction and educa 
tion, or who are in any way conversant with 
men. It is indeed liable to abuse, and has been 
abused by human teachers, but it is true not 
withstanding; and we are warranted by all the 
divine perfections to believe that it will not be 
abused by God, while, at the same time, we 
believe that his wisdom and goodness must lead 
him to proceed in accordance with it, in his deal- 
ings with men. And so we find, that God has 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



115 



sometimes withheld particular truths from men, 
or has indulged them in particular prejudices 
and errors, and this in perfect consistency with 
his veracity ; since it would have been attended 
with injury for him, considering the circum- 
stances of men at that particular period of the 
world, to have substituted better views in place 
of those which prevailed among them. The 
Old Testament furnishes many instances in 
which prevailing prejudices were indulged, and 
many truths were left for a time in comparative 
obscurity, and a more clear revelation was de- 
ferred to a distant period, when men should be- 
come more capable of receiving it. Thus God 
sometimes exhibits in his dealings with men 
what the Grecian philosophers call avyxatdfiaais, 
a condescension to the views and capacities of 
men, which is as indispensable in the education 
of nations, and of the whole human race, as in 
that of individuals. Vide Dr. Senff, Von der 
Herablassung Gottes. 

As an instance of this condescension, we may 
mention the fact, that God sometimes appears 
to remit something of the severity of his threat- 
enings. And this he does in accommodation to 
our views of his character; somewhat, in this 
case, as the father remits the severity of the 
punishment which is due to his child, in order 
to inspire him with more confidence, and to con- 
vince him, in anunexpected manner, of his entire 
affection. Cf. Jonah, iii. 4, coll. ver. 9, 10, and 
iv. 2, 9 — 11. Add to this, that while some of 
the promises and threatenings of God are uncon- 
ditional and absorute, (such as the promise of a 
numerous posterity to Abraham, and the threat- 
ening of the servitude of the posterity of Esau,) 
most of them are conditional, and depend upon 
the obedience or disobedience of those to whom 
they are addressed ; but that this condition is 
sometimes so obvious from the nature of the 
case, or in some other way so well known, that 
it is not expressed in words, but only tacitly 
implied — e. g., Jonah, iii. iv. Another example 
which must be explained on this principle of 
the condescension of God to the views of men, 
and the conceptions prevailing in any parti- 
cular age, is the sacrifice which Abraham was 
required to make of his son Isaac, Gen. xxii. 
2, seq. Morus, p. 54. Still another instance 
of the condescension of God to human opinions 
and customs : men are accustomed to regard an 
oath as preeminently sacred ; God, therefore, in 
order to shew that his declarations agree per- 
fectly with his mind and will, swears that they 
are true, Heb. vi. 13, seq. 

It may be remarked, in general, that the more 
any one is acquainted with the history of men, 
and with the mode in which they expressed 
themselves in ancient times, and which still pre- 
vails among the common people at the present 
day, the less will the phraseology of the Bible 



appear obscure, strange, or revolting. In this 
view the study of Homer may be highly recom- 
mended to theologians. For they are peculiarly 
liable, from their familiarity with technical and 
philosophical phraseology, to misunderstand 
such representations as those under considera- 
tion, and which are perfectly intelligible to plain 
and practical men. The latter find little diffi- 
culty in understanding the most figurative re- 
presentations of the Bible, and in entering into 
their full spirit, because they are familiar with 
such representations ; whereas men of learned 
pursuits find great difficulty even in obtaining 
the meaning of a figurative and popular phrase- 
ology, and greater still in making use of it in 
their instructions. They have too little inter- 
course with men in the common walks of life. 
This is a common fault with us all. 

II. The Goodness or Love of God. 

This attribute consists in the determination 
or inclination of the will of God to bestow upon 
his creatures all the good of which they are sus- 
ceptible. It is ascribed to God, because it 
forms an essential part of that, character which 
we must ascribe to him as the most perfect be- 
ing. It is proved in the clearest manner by the 
fact, that God has so created and constituted the 
universe, that the whole, and each particular 
portion, possesses that degree of perfection and 
well-being of which it is susceptible. It is also 
proved in the preservation and government of 
the world, in a manner which must be perfectly 
satisfactory to every rational being. The proof 
of the divine goodness derived from the benevo- 
lent constitution of nature may be exhibited in 
a very intelligible and practical manner, and on 
this account is frequently employed in the holy 
scriptures. The passage in which this proof is 
exhibited most fully and distinctly is Psalm 
civ., a good commentary on which may be 
found in Cicero, Nat. Deor. ii. 39. Cicero 
says, very truly, (Nat. Deor. i. 44,) that all re- 
ligious and pious feeling would cease, if love 
and benevolence were denied to God. If we 
would excite the heart to affection, obedience, 
and gratitude towards God, and warm it with 
religious sentiments, we must bring to view the 
divine benevolence. John therefore declares, in 
his first epistle, iv. 8, 16, ©eoj tj dya.7irj, and 
Plato says, God is beauty and love itself. But 
in order that this truth may have its full effect, 
every one should consider how much goodness 
God has shewn to him as an individual. The 
Bible directs our attention particularly to those 
proofs of the divine benevolence, commonly less 
regarded, which appear in all which God has 
done, from time to time, to bring men to happi- 
ness, in his great plan of instruction and salva- 
tion. The texts which treat of the blessings 
conferred by Christianity belong to this con- 



216 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



nexion — viz., John, iii. 16; 1 John, iv. 9, 10; 
Rom. v. 6—12; Tit. ii. 11— 14. This great 
proof of the love of God is called, by way of 
eminence, 57 aydit-q, ^aptj. Moms, p. 56, n. 7. 
For a farther discussion of this subject, vide the 
Articles concerning Divine Providence, and con- 
cerning Christ. 

The love of God has different names given it 
in the Bible, according to the different ways in 
which it is expressed, and the different relations 
which it bears to his creatures, and their condi- 
tion, ipn jn, zaptj, etaoj, are very common 
names, signifying unmerited love or goodness, 
and implying God's greatness, and our unwor- 
thiness. pyi is another common name for this 
attribute; whence Sixauxsvvq in the New Testa- 
ment often signifies benevolence. These He- 
brew words are sometimes rendered by aya^o- 
6VVYJ and xp^^otyjg. So far as the love of God 
has respect to men in general, it is called phi- 
lanthropy, q>Aav$po7tla ®sov, Tit. iii. 4 ; and 
from the possession of it, God is called the 
father of men. The texts in which this is done 
are cited in Morus, p. 55, n. 1. So far as the 
love of God has respect to the miserable and the 
suffering, it is called pity and compassion, mise- 
ricordia, benevolentia erga miseros, biprn, ta 
G7t%dy%va ®sov, tteo$. Men in this condition 
have the promise given them that God will pro- 
tect and comfort them, and provide a way for 
their deliverance where they could see none. 
And to such persons it must be an inexpressible 
consolation that God has not merely enabled 
them to attain a hope, in the use of their reason, 
that he would assist and stand by them, but has 
expressly promised them that he will certainly 
do this. To the afflicted nothing can be more 
consoling than the sure promise of God ; and 
of this the religious teacher should be mindful 
in his instructions. So far as the love of God 
is exercised in deferring or abating deserved 
punishments, it is called forbearance, long-suf- 
fering, patience, indulgence, d^~x t\yi, /xaxpo^v- 
\ul(%, avozri, Psa. ciii. 8, seq. ; Rom. ii. 4 ; ix. 22. 

The love of God is described in the scrip- 
tures as, 

1. Universal and impartial. God bestows 
upon each of his creatures as much good as he 
is capable of receiving. Philo says, Oi3 rfpoj to 
/is'yf^oj Evspystsi (u 0e6j) tW ojvtov %apn!u>v — 
rtpoj hi tfaj tiiv svspystov/xivoiv Swa/Astf ov yap 
w$ Tiityvxt v u ©to? sv Ttoiziv, o-GVco xal to ysvofxevov 
sv rtdcizBLv, x. t. %. De Opif. Mundi, p. 13, ed. 
Pf. This is the great principle upon which 
God proceeds in the distribution of his favours, 
whether greater or smaller, more or less fre- 
quent. Psa. cxlv. 9, "The Lord is good to all; 
and his tender mercies are over all his works." 
Cf. Psa. xxxvi. 7; ciii. 11 — 13, "For as the 
heaven is high above the earth, so great is his 
mercy toward them that fear him," &c. This 



doctrine of the universal and impartial love of 
God, though it was believed and taught by the 
prophets of the Old Testament, was for the first 
time exhibited in its true light and in its whole 
extent in the New Testament, in opposition to 
the prejudices of the Jews, which very much 
limited the divine goodness. To assert, how- 
ever, that the teachers of the Old Testament, 
and especially Moses, were wholly destitute of 
correct ideas respecting the love of God, is very 
untrue; and the contrary may be proved from 
innumerable passages of scripture. Vide, e. g., 
Exodus, xxxiv. 6, 7; Num. xiv. 17, 18. The 
blame of their mistaken views of this subject 
rested upon the great body of the Jewish nation, 
and not upon their teachers. The moral percep- 
tions of the Jews were so perverted that they 
misunderstood what they were taught respecting 
the moral attributes of God. 

2. Unmerited, gratuitous. And in this re- 
spect, particularly, the love of God is called 
^aptj, in, Rom. iv. 4, seq. ; xi. 5. There is no 
opinion more prejudicial to the interests of true 
morality than the opinion so prevalent among 
the Jews at the time of Christ, and recurring 
under different forms in every age of the church, 
that the love of God can be merited or procured 
by men; and accordingly there is no opinion 
which was more opposed by the writers of the 
New Testament. It is impossible that desert 
of any kind should come into consideration with 
love, as such ; for wherever desert is regarded, 
love must be exchanged for obligation, Rom. iv. 
4, seq. The free goodness of God is never ex- 
ercised, however, inconsistently with his wis- 
dom and justice. Hence the pious may always 
be sure that rewards will be bestowed upon 
them by God; while the wicked can have no 
such expectation, Rom. ii. 4, 5. Cf. Thomas 
Balguy, Divine Benevolence Asserted, trans- 
lated into German by J. A. Eberhard. 

SECTION XXIX. 

OF THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 

The holiness of God, in the general notion of 
it, is his moral perfection — that attribute by 
which all moral imperfection is removed from 
his nature. The holiness of the will of God is 
that, therefore, by which he chooses, necessa- 
rily and invariably, what is morally good, and 
refuses what is morally evil. The holiness and 
justice of God are, in reality, one and the same 
thing; the distinction consists in this only, that 
holiness denotes the internal inclination of the 
divine will — the disposition of God; and jus- 
tice, the expression of the same by actions. 
Vide s. 27, ad finem. This attribute implies, 

1. That no sinful or wicked inclination can 
be found in God. Hence he is said, James, i. 
13, coll. 17, to be artslpaatos xaxwv, incapable 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



117 



of being tempted to evil, (not in the active sense, 
as it is rendered by the Vulgate and Luther;) 
and in 1 John, i. 5, to be light, and without dark- 
ness — i. e., holy, and without sin. In this sense 
he is called "viro, xa^apoj ayvot, 1 John, iii. 3 ; 
also D^on, axKoos, integer, Psa. xviii. 31. The 
older writers described this by the word dra- 
/xdar^tos, impeccabilis. [The sinlessness of God 
is also designated in the New Testament by the 
words rsteios, Matt. v. 48 ; and ocaoj, Rev. 
xvi. 5.] 

2. That he never chooses what is false and 
deceitful, but only what is truly good — what 
his perfect intelligence recognises as such ; and 
that he is therefore the most perfect teacher, 
and the highest exemplar of moral goodness. 
Hence the Bible declares that he looks with 
displeasure upon wicked, deceitful courses, Psa. 
1. 16, seq. ; v. 5, (Thou hatest all workers of 
iniquity ;) but that, on the contrary, he regards 
the pious with favour, Psa. v. 7, 8 ; xv. 1, seq. ; 
xviii. 26, seq. ; xxxiii. 18. Cf. the texts cited 
by Morus, p. 47, s. 11, note 3 — 5. The ground, 
therefore, of the holiness God is in his under- 
standing and the freedom of his will. Vide 
s. 26. 

As to the use of the words m\p and aytoj, 
some philologists (particularly Zacharia, Bi- 
blische Theologia, th. i. s. 240, f.) remark, that 
they are never used in the scriptures, with 
reference to God, in the sense here ascribed 
to them, but rather describe him as the object 
of awe and veneration. And it is true that this 
is their prevailing meaning — e. g., Isa. vi. 9 ; 
John, xvii. 11, (oyts TtaVsp ;) and that according- 
ly oyca^Eo^ac. signifies, to be esteemed venerable, to 
be reverenced. Still these words are in many 
passages applied to God undeniably in a moral 
sense — e. g., Lev. xix. 2, " Be ye holy, for I am 
holy;" cf. 1 Pet. i. 14 — 16. Thus also daiotr^ 
Eph. iv. 24, and ayacavv^, aycaauoc, by which 
all moral perfection is so frequently designated, 
especially in the New Testament. The differ- 
ent meanings of the words tzmp and oytoj stand 
connected clearly in the following manner (cf. 
s. 126) — viz. these words signify (a) the being 
externally pure — e. g., 2 Sam. xi. 4; Lev. xi. 
43, 44 ; xx. 7, 25, 26, &c. ; (Z>) the being sepa- 
rate, since we are accustomed to divide what is 
pure from what is impure, and to castaway the 
latter ; and therefore (c) the possessing of any 
hind cf externa! advantage, distinction, or worth; 
so the Jews were said to be holy to God, in op- 
position to others, who were xoivoi, profane, 
common, unconsecrated. Then everything which 
was without imperfection, disgrace, or blemish, 
was called holy ; and riv, dyioj, sacrosanctus, 
came thus to signify what was inviolable, Isa. 
iv. 3 ; 1 Cor. iii. 17, (hence chpc, asylum.) 
They were then used in the more limited sense 
tf chaste, CHke the Latin sanctitas) — a sense in 



which they are sometimes used in the New 
Testament — e. g., 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7, (cf. Wolf, 
in loc. ;) but not always, as Stange supposes, 
(Symmikta, II. 268, f.) They then came to 
denote any or all internal, moral perfection ; 
and finally, perfection, in the general notion of 
it, as exclusive of all imperfection. Cf. Morus, 
p. 47, s. 11. 

SECTION XXX. 

OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 

The justice of God is that attribute by which 
he actively exhibits his approbation of what is 
good, and his disapprobation of what is evil. 
It is therefore the same in essence with his holi- 
ness, vide s. 29. So far as God has compla- 
cency in what is good he is called holy ; so far 
as he exhibits this complacency in his actual 
procedure in the government of the world he is 
called just. The word holiness, accordingly, 
refers rather to the internal disposition of God ; 
and justice, to the display or outward manifesta- 
tion of this disposition in his actual government. 
Both of these attributes stand in close connex- 
ion with the divine benevolence; they may be 
deduced from it, and indeed must be regarded 
as expressions of it. Cf. the remarks made on 
this subject and on the definition of Leibnitz, s. 
27, note. 

Respecting the biblical use of the words pns, 
pyt, and hlxaos. In its primary, original mean- 
ing, pnx doubtless denotes what is fit, suited, 
adapted to a particular end, appropriate, right. 
The Greek 8ixaios has the same signification as 
hixaios irfrtoj, hixaiov ap ( ua, x. ?. %., also the 
Latin Justus, the German gerecht, and the Eng- 
lish right. These words came afterwards to 
denote one who acts justly and rightly, a virtuous 
man in the moral sense. Accordingly pTi,, and 
SixaLoovr?- (both in the Septuagint and in the 
New Testament) signify virtue, piety, also 
truth, (Isaiah, xlii. 6,) veracity, fidelity, honesty, 
goodness, beneficence, alms, and then what is 
more properly called justice, as exercised in 
courts. Hence pnsn, bi-xaioiv, signify, to acquit, 
pronounce innocent, pardon, and in genera!, to 
favour. The proper meaning must in each case 
be determined by the connexion. 

God exhibits to men his complacency in what 
is good and useful, and his disapprobation oi 
whet is evil and injurious, in two ways : — (1) 
By laws and various institutes, which are in- 
tended to teach us, on the one hand, what is 
good and salutary, and on the other, what is 
evil and injurious, in order that we may know 
how to regulate our feelings and our conduct. 
This is called legislative justice (Justiiia legisla- 
toria, sive antccedens, sive dispositiva.) (2) By 
actions, in which he manifests his approbation 
of what is good, and of those who practise it; 



118 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



and his disapprobation of what is evil, and of 
those who live wickedly. This is called retri- 
butive justice, (justitia retributiva, judiciaria, 
rec-'fria, distributiva, compensatrix, consequens.) 
Since this division, which has long been com- 
mon in the schools of theology and philosophy, 
is founded in truth, we shall here adopt it, after 
the example of Morus. The same thing may 
be expressed in other words, as follows : — God, 
as he is holy, accurately estimates the distinc- 
tion between what is morally good and evil, 
and accordingly between the good and evil ac- 
tions of men ; he has made known to men this 
distinction by means of his laws, (to a know- 
ledge of which we are led by reason, scripture, 
and experience,) and upon this he insists ; and 
that men may not only know the difference be- 
tween good and evil, but experience and feel it, 
he has inseparably connected certain necessary 
advantages (rewards) with what is good, and 
disadvantages (punishments) with what is evil. 
We proceed, therefore, to treat, 

I. The Legislative Justice of God. 

All the divine laws have respect to the true 
welfare of men, since they prescribe what is 
good and useful, and forbid the contrary. Vide 
Psalm xix. 8 — 12 ; Rom. xii. 2, ®s%7j/Aa ®£ov to 
ayo&bv xai evdpsG'tov xai titecov. The divine 
laws are commonly divided into — 

1. -Natural — i. e., ,such as necessarily flow 
from the constitution of human nature. They 
may be learned from human reason and con- 
science, and are constantly alluded to, repeated, 
explained, and enlarged by the Bible. Cf. 
Introduction, s. 3. 

2. Arbitrary, or positive. Such are those 
which stand in no necessary connexion with 
human nature, and cannot therefore be discover- 
ed or demonstrated by reason, but depend mere- 
ly upon the express command of God. They 
are not written upon the human heart, but made 
known to us by God from without. Among 
positive laws may be counted those which con- 
cern the institution of public worship and the 
ritual, also the political precepts of Moses, and 
many other precepts and doctrines of religion 
contained in the scriptures of the Old and New 
Testament. 

The common belief is, that such positive pre- 
cepts have been given by God both to Jews and 
Christians. And this belief is justified by the 
following reasons: — (1) Positive precepts are 
useful as affording to men an exercise of obedi- 
ence, piety, and devotion. A father often im- 
poses upon a child an arbitrary rule in order 
to accustom it to obedience, or with some other 
wise intent; but always with the good of the 
child in view, although the child may not be 
able to understand the why and the wherefore. 
Positive precepts should therefore always be 



obeyed, although they may not appear to us to 
have any natural or obvious connexion with our 
welfare; for they are given by God, who can- 
not command anything without reference to our 
good. (2) All experience shews that even the 
most cultivated men, when left to themselves, 
fall into absurd religious observances and forms 
of worship. It cannot, therefore, be improper 
for God to prescribe even arbitrary services, 
and to give positive laws and doctrines re- 
lating to religion. (3) By being expressly 
revealed and positively prescribed, even natu- 
ral laws may obtain a positive authority, re- 
ceive a more solemn sanction, and thus exert 
a better influence. They may be explained, 
confirmed, enlarged, and enforced by positive 
precepts. But since positive precepts are de- 
signed in many cases to promote particular ob- 
jects, which cannot be known from the nature 
of things, they are not necessarily universal and 
unalterable, unless they are declared to be so by 
God ; nor are they binding upon persons who, 
without any fault of their own, remain unac- 
quainted with them. 

Many, on the contrary, deny that God has 
given any positive precepts, and consider them 
all as of human origin. They pretend, that 
much harm has been and will be done in human 
society by pleading a divine origin for positive 
precepts and doctrines. So thought Tindal, and 
many of the English rationalists, and the same 
opinion has lately been expressed by Dr. Stein- 
bart in his System der reinen Gliickseligkeits- 
lehre, s. 62 — 71, 130, ff. Many of the ancient 
Grecian philosophers, too, believed that the 
supposition that God had given positive precepts 
was merely a popular error, since all which were 
affirmed to be such were obviously contrived by 
men, and promulgated under the divine authori- 
ty. In opposition to this argument, Ernesti 
wrote his Vindicics arbitrii divini in religione 
constituenda, Opusc. Theol., p. 187, seq. He 
was strongly opposed by Tollner, in his In- 
quiry, Utrum Deus ex mero arbitrio potesta- 
tem suarn legislatoriam exerceat ; also by Eber- 
hard in his Apologie des Sokrates, th. i. But 
no objections which are merely a priori can dis- 
prove the existence of positive precepts. 

The following arguments have been used to 
render the objection to positive laws somewhat 
plausible : — (1) It is thought that experience 
proves that the promulgation of positive laws 
which are received as of divine origin, exposes 
natural law T s to be neglected and transgressed, 
and in proof of this the example of the Israelites 
and Christians is adduced. To this it is justly 
replied, that the abuse of a thing does not pre- 
vent its proper use. The fact that many have 
made an improper use of positive precepts can- 
not prove that they are without use, injurious, 
and reprehensible, and that they cannot be of 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



119 



divine origin. The most useful objects and the 
most benevolent arrangements in the natural 
world have often been abused by men; but this 
is no proof that they were not made and appoint- 
ed by God. (2) Oppressive burdens and severe 
and intolerable laws, it is said, will be imposed 
upon men, on pretence of divine authority, 
whenever the existence of positive laws is ad- 
mitted; and in proof of this, the history of the 
Jews is again referred to. To this it may be re- 
plied, that these very pretended divine laws have 
made it so much the more necessary for God to 
interpose in our behalf by his own positive com- 
mands. Again: the evil consequences spoken 
of do not flow from positive divine ordinances, 
but from arbitrary human ordinances, which 
men, have falsely pretended to be divine. In 
reply, it is said that both experience and his- 
tory teach that it must be difficult to distin- 
guish between those laws which are really of 
divine origin and those which are only pretended 
to be such. (3) God founded and arranged 
everything so wisely in the beginning that no 
alterations or additions in the established natural 
laws are necessary; and that he should do what 
is unnecessary cannot, it is said, be supposed. 
To this it may be replied, that positive divine 
precepts do not alter, contradict, annul, or in 
any way repeal, the natural laws. To prove, 
h priori, either that positive laws do not exist or 
are unnecessary, is quite impossible. Whether 
there are or are not positive laws is a question 
of fact ; and if it can be shewn that positive di- 
vine precepts actually exist, all reasoning to the 
contrary, a priori, is of no avail. If no evil ex- 
isted in the world, our philosophers would prove 
h priori, from all the attributes of God, that a 
world in which eviP should exist was utterly 
impossible. But since the existence of evil is 
beyond a doubt, they must be content to shew 
how it is reconcilable with the divine attributes. 
Cf. Morus, p. 48—50, s. 12. 

Note. — The following remarks shall suffice 
us, without going further into the philosophical 
investigation of this disputed point. The his- 
tory of man in all ages shews that the natural 
obligation to perform certain duties cannot be 
made intelligible to the greater part of mankind 
by merely rational considerations and proofs. 
They depend upon authority ; and if authority 
be wisely employed, more influence over their 
minds is obtained than in any other way. Nor 
is this the case with the ignorant and illiterate 
only, but almost equally with the learned and 
educated, though they are unwilling to acknow- 
ledge or believe it. The authority of God must, 
of course, exert a more powerful influence over 
the mind than any other authority. Hence from 
the earliest times, and even among the heathen 
nations, the natural law has been promulged, as 
if expressly and orally given by God. Men felt 



the necessity of having positive divine precepts. 
They must also of necessity have some external 
rites and ceremonies addressed to the senses in 
their worship of Cod. But to secure to these 
rites and ceremonies (so necessary and beneficial 
to men) the needful authority, and a truly so- 
lemn sanction, they were prescribed even among 
the heathen, by those who contrived them, as 
coming directly from God. The ancient legis- 
lators published even their civilians in the same 
way, and with a similar intention. Hence 
among the Grecians, Romans, and Mahom- 
medans, as well as the Israelites, the civil and 
religious laws w r ere interwoven and united. 
Can it now appear surprising, inconsistent, or 
contrary to the natural expectations of men, for 
God to publish positive laws among the Israel- 
ites, under his own authority, by Moses and the 
prophets ] By his doing so, the Jews might be 
preserved from all the positive laws which men 
would otherwise have imposed upon them. If 
it is once conceded that authority is necessary 
for men, and that the authority of God has and 
must have greater weight than any other, then 
for God to publish laws on his own authority 
must be considered as highly beneficial. Whe- 
ther he has actually done so, by means of im- 
mediate revelation; whether universally or to a 
particular people; are questions of fact which 
depend upon testimony, and cannot be deter- 
mined h priori. Vide Introduction, s. 2, 3. 

The writers of the Old and New Testament 
consider the fact, that God made known his will 
to the Israelites, and gave them laws, as one of 
their principal advantages over other people, 
Psalm cxlvii. 20 ; Rom. iii. 2. But the positive 
laws given to the Israelites are, in part, of such 
a nature, that they cannot and ought not to be 
universally observed. They were mostly in- 
tended only for a particular age, a single people, 
country, and climate. By degrees, as circum- 
stances changed, they were found deficient and 
inadequate, and gave occasion to various abuses. 
At this juncture Christianity appeared. It pro- 
mulgated the law of nature on divine authority, 
as had been done in the former dispensation. 
But with this, its founder enacted various posi- 
tive religious precepts and laws, which, how- 
ever, were few in number, and of a nature to be 
easily and universally obeyed. He then de- 
clared men free from all those positive laws of 
the Mosaic dispensation which had not at the 
same time a natural obligation, or were not 
again enacted by himself. The ceremonial law 
had now performed its service. It was not in- 
tended to be of perpetual and universal obliga- 
tion. But during that state of ignorance and 
superstition into which Europe relapsed, this 
religion, which was simple in its nature and be- 
nign in its influence, as established by Christ, 
became so overloaded and corrupted by positive 



3*0 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



precepts, for which divine authority was pre- 
tended, that Christian nations were in a state 
little better than that of the Jews at the coming 
of Christ. This fact, however, so far from dis- 
proving the claims of Christianity to be regarded 
as given by God, proves only the perversions 
of those to whom it was entrusted. The best 
gifts of Heaven have been abused by men; but 
this abuse does not disprove their divine ori- 
ginal. 

SECTION XXXI. 

OF the justice of god — {continued.) 
II. The Retributive Justice of God. 

When God exhibits his approbation of such 
actions as correspond with his laws, and his 
displeasure at such actions as he has forbidden, 
we see his retributive justice. This approbation 
which he expresses of what is morally good, is 
called reward; his disapprobation expressed 
against what is evil, punishment. The former 
is frequently called in the Bible by the figure 
synecdoche, aydrtri ©sou, and the latter, 6py/j 
®eov, fjs, linn, i.n, Rom. i. 18 ;' ii. 8. Those who 
believe in the existence of God will generally 
allow that he is not only the supreme ruler, but. 
also the disposer of our destiny ; that our happi- 
ness and misery are in his power. And since 
we find, both by experience and observation, 
that obedience to the divine commands has 
happy consequences, and disobedience unhappy 
consequences, we conclude that God rewards 
virtue and punishes vice; that happiness is a 
proof of his love, and misery a proof of his dis- 
pleasure and anger. According to this simple 
notion, by which God is represented as acting 
after the manner of men, the language of the 
Bible on this subject is to be understood and 
explained. This notion which we form of God, 
as acting after the manner of men, and which 
we express in the language common to men, 
gives rise to the scholastic division of the di- 
vine justice, into rcmuntratoria and puniiiva. 
We shall here exhibit only the general princi- 
ples upon which we shall proceed in the further 
discussion of this subject in the Article on Sin, 
s. 86, 87, where a history of this doctrine will 
be given. 

1. Remunerative justice. 

When God rewards good actions by favours 
immediately bestowed or promised hereafter, he 
exercises his remunerative justice. From these 
blessings bestowed upon us as rewards, we 
justly conclude that our actions agree with the 
divine will, and that God loves and approves us; 
and by these blessings we are thus induced to 
regulate our conduct according to the divine 
commands: this, then, we may suppose to be 
the object which God has in view in the bestow- 



ment of these rewards. Here belong the follow- 
ing texts of scripture : Ps. xxxvii. 37 ; Ixxiii. 24, 
seq. ; Rom. ii. 6 — 10; 1 Cor. iii. 8; Hebrews, 
vi. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8, &c. The rewards bestow- 
ed by God are commonly divided into natural 
and positive. Natural rewards may be explained 
as follows : — God has so wisely constituted the 
natural world, that good actions have happy 
consequences; that there is a nexus commodi 
necessarii cum bono, sive recte fucto, as Morus 
expresses it. The advantages spoken of have 
their ground in the wise constitution which God 
himself has given to the natural world, and are 
therefore called prsemia naturalia, sive wdinaria. 
Among these natural rewards may be enume- 
rated, peace and tranquillity of mind, the appro- 
bation of the good, the enjoyment of external 
advantages, bodily strength and health, increase 
of possessions, &c. Vide Ps. xxxvii. 16 — 40; 
cxii. This is v/hat is meant by saying, Virtue 
rewards itself. Positive rewards are those which 
stand in no necessary connexion with the actions 
of men, but are conferred by an express and 
particular divine appointment, constituting what 
Morus calls the nexus commodi non necessarii 
cum bono, sive recte facto. The question is here 
asked, if positive rewards are ever conferred 
during the present life ; and if so, what they are 1 
To this we may answer, that in the Christian 
dispensation positive rewards during the present 
life are not universally promised, as in the an- 
cient dispensation; and that it is impossible to 
determine, in any particular cases, whether a 
reward is positive or natural. The texts com- 
monly cited in proof of present positive rewards 
refer either to the natural consequences of virtue, 
(e. g., 1 Tim. iv. 8; Mark, x. 29, 30; Prov. iii. 
2, seq.,) or to the particular promises made to 
the Jews, which are no longer valid, (e. g., 
Num. xxviii. 5, 29; Exod. x. 23; Ephes. vi. 
2.) But when speaking of the rewards of the 
future world, the writers of the New Testament 
plainly declare, that besides the natural conse- 
quences of good actions which the righteous 
will enjoy, God will bestow upon them positive 
rewards, which cannot be considered as the na- 
tural consequences of virtue. Vide Article xv. 
This remunerative justice of God may be farther 
described as universal; the smallest virtues of 
every individual man will be rewarded, for they 
are all known to God, Matt. x. 42; 1 Cor. iv. 
5; Heb. vi. 10. It is also impartial. This is 
called in the Bible, a7iponcd7io%^La ©gov, Rom. 
ii. 10, 11. Unlike human judges, who are often 
deceived by external appearances, God rewards 
actions according to their moral worth, and 
real, internal excellence. The full display of 
the divine justice, either in rewards or punish- 
ments, is not seen in the present life; but is re- 
served, as we are taught in the Bible, for the 
future world. In the Bible we are also taught 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



121 



that our present life is but the feeble commence- 
ment of our being ; and that by far the largest 
: md most important part of our existence — our 
vita vere vitalis — will hereafter commence ; and 
we are thus enabled to comprehend what would 
otherwise be inscrutable, how it is consistent 
with the justice'of God to appoint affliction to 
the righteous and prosperity to the wicked, as 
he often does in the present world. Vide the 
excellent parable of the tares among the wheat, 
Matt. xiii. 24—30, coll. ver. 36—40; Cf. Rom. 
ii. 5—12; 2 Thess. i. 4—12; Luke, iv. 13, 14. 

2. Penal Justice. 

When we say the justice of God is exhibited 
in punishment, it is as much as to say that he 
causes unhappiness to follow upon moral evil, 
in order to convince men that he disapproves of 
disobedience to his commands. Neclit commoda 
bono, sive rectefadis ,• incommodo malo, sive male 
factis. 

1. The ends of God in punishing. 

God punishes, (a) in order to prevent or di- 
minish moral evil, with reference therefore to 
the good of the whole, and of particular indivi- 
duals. 1 Cor. xi. 32, Kpwopevot into Kvpvov 
rtaidsvo/xs^a, iva firj 6vv tq xoGfAcp xataxpL$ii>ix£v — 
i. e., the divine punishments suspended over us 
are intended for our improvement, and unless, 
warned by them, we really become better, we 
shall fail of eternal blessedness, and share the 
fate of the unbelieving world. Isaiah, xxvi. 9, 
When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabit- 
ants will learn righteousness. Ps. cxix. 67, Be- 
fore I was afflicted I went astray ; but now have 
I kept thy law, lest I should draw upon myself 
additional afflictions. Ver. 71, It is goodfor me 
that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy 
statutes. God punishes (b) in order to shew 
that sin is displeasing to him, and that only the 
truly obedient can count upon his approbation ; 
in order, therefore, to preserve inviolate among 
men the authority of his benevolent laws, in- 
tended for their best good. And since nothing 
can be more important or desirable to men than 
the approbation of God, he is actuated by the 
same benevolence in punishing with this intent 
as with the former. The Bible teaches us that 
God has this end in view in the punishments 
which he inflicts, by saying, he will be sanctified 
by means of his judgments, Lev. x. 3. This is 
the same as to say that by punishing men he 
designs to be seen and acknowledged by them 
as a holy God, or as one who disapproves of 
wickedness. The same thing is taught in Rom. 
i. 18, 'A7ioxa'kv7i't£'ta( l opy^ ®tov — irii naaav 
aaeSsiav xai aftixlav av^p^rtcov. But the justice 
of God also requires that as he rewards the good 
which others do to us (s. 30), he should also 
punish the evil which they bring upon us, (2 
Thess. i. 6, 7; Ps. ix. 5, seq. ; N and this is 
16 



called, in the popular language which the Bible 
employs, his revenge, ixSCxTja^, Rom. xii. 19. 

Thus it appears that the true final cause of 
the divine judgments upon men is their moral 
improvement; and in this respect it may be 
said, with entire truth, that the penal justice of 
God is his goodness, wisely proportioned to the 
capacity of its objects. But it is not the im- 
provement of those only whom he punishes 
which God intends in the judgments which he 
inflicts, but that of others also, who may take 
warning from these examples. So that even 
should God fail of his object in reforming the 
offender himself, he would still benefit others 
who might witness the punishments inflicted 
upon him. Vide Ps. 1. 16, seq.; lii. 6, seq.; 
Rom. ii. 4—6; 2 Pet. ii. iii.; 1 Cor. x. 11, 
Now all these punishments were inflicted upon the 
Israelites as examples (yvrtoi, see ver. 6) to us, 
who live in the latest period of the world, (in 
New-Testament times.) Some think, with 
Michaelis, (Gedanken iiber die Lehre der heili- 
gen Schrift von der Siinde, u. s. w. Gottingen, 
1779, 8vo,) that the final cause of the divine 
judgments is not so much to benefit and reform 
the offender, as to terrify and deter others from 
the commission of crime. Michaelis does not 
indeed deny that punishment might be made to 
promote the reformation of those w 7 ho are the 
subjects of it; but he still thinks that the great 
end which is contemplated by all judicatories 
in the punishments which they inflict is to ter- 
rify and deter from crime, sometimes the male- 
factor himself, as well as others, but more 
frequently others only, who may witness his 
punishment. And this is indeed true with re- 
gard to human judicatories, which have no such 
means of punishment within their power as are 
calculated for the reformation of the culprit, 
and can therefore only hold him forth as an ex- 
ample for the warning of others; but this is an 
imperfection which is inevitable to these judi- 
catories as human, and ought not therefore to be 
transferred to the divine government. It is in 
consequence of this imperfection incident to 
human judicatories, by which they are driven 
to consult for the good of the whole, exclusive 
of that of the criminal, that they must often in- 
flict upon him severer penalties than his own 
benefit would require, merely for the sake of 
the salutary influence of his punishment on the 
minds of others. That they are thus compelled 
to sacrifice an individual to the general good 
is certainly an evidence of imperfection. Just 
at that point where punishment ceases to be 
salutary to the person who endures it, however 
salutary it may be to others as an example — 
just at that point does it become an evidence 
of the ignorance and imperfection of those by 
whom it is inflicted. But how can we suppose 
L 



122 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



hat God, who knows what kinds of punish- 
merJ \re necessary for the benefit of the offend- 
er, and who has every mode of punishment at 
command, would ever punish any one more se- 
verely than was necessary for his own profit, 
merely for the sake of making him a terrible 
example to others'? None upon whom he 
inflicts punishment, with their good in view, 
will fail of being benefited by it, unless through 
their own fault; for he employs those means 
only which are calculated to produce this effect, 
and is liable in the choice of means to none of 
those mistakes and imperfections to which 
human judicatories are subject. We cannot, 
therefore, make these human judicatories our 
standard of judging respecting the divine go- 
vernment. The judicial authority of God does 
not rest on the same basis as that of human 
rulers; and in the judgments which he inflicts 
none of the imperfections of human judgments 
appear. We should avoid many mistakes if, 
when we speak even of the justice of God, we 
should represent him less under the image of a 
judge than of a father, who, as we are taught 
in the Bible, is "good even in his judgments," 
Ps. cxix. 39. The benevolence by which God 
is actuated in his severest inflictions is implied 
in the very words by which his chastisement is 
denoted — e. g., rfatSafc'a, Hebrews, xii. 5 — 11; 
and artOTfopLia, Rom. xi. 22. The representation 
of God under the image of a judge is not, how- 
ever, in itself objectionable, but only on account 
of its liability to abuse. It is very natural to 
men, as we see from the present example, to 
transfer to God the extremely defective ideal 
which they have derived from human rulers ; 
and i-t will therefore be wiser for religious 
teachers to represent God under the image of a 
father, at least to those who ar.e virtuous, and of 
a nature to be influenced by kindness and love, 
and to reserve the image of a severe and right- 
eous judge for rude and intractable men, who 
are incapable of being influenced by anything 
but terror. 

Note 1. — Persons cannot be said to be punish- 
ed when they suffer without any fault of their 
own, but only when they suffer in consequence 
of their wickedness. The wretchedness which 
the prodigal son brought upon himself (Luke, 
xv.) is properly called punishment; while the 
same wretchedness befalling an innocent person 
would properly be denominated calamity. The 
Bible teaches us very justly and satisfactorily 
how such evils and sufferings as befall the vir- 
tuous must be understood and improved by them 
and by others. The wise father, in the educa- 
tion of his children, often finds it necessary to 
treat even the dutiful with severity, in order to 
promote their present advantage and real per- 
manent welfare. In the same manner does God 
often see it necessary, for wise reasons, to exer- 



cise severity towards those whom he is edu- 
cating, and to impose sufferings upon them. Ho 
sees that afflictions will tend to promote their 
holiness, strengthen their faith, and restrain theii 
sinful propensities. Habent talia vim discipline, 
Morus, p. 50. This is the view of the chastise- 
ment we receive from God, which is given us 
by Paul in that excellent passage, Heb. xii. 
5 — 11. He there calls the discipline which we 
receive, 7iai8siav, fatherly correction, and com- 
pares the conduct of God towards men with 
that of a father. Ver. 6, "Ov ayarta Kvpios, 
7tcu8sv£t. Ver. 7, Tt'j iviiv vlbs, uv ov TtaiftivEc 
rtatrft. In ver. 10 the apostle teaches that 
God punishes irti r6 avpfyipov and proceeds, 
ver. 11, to say, TtowSsta ov Soxsl ^apaj elvai, 
vo-tspov Ss xaprtbv eipr t vixbv ctrtoSiScofft, x. if. "K. 
The goodness and justice of God which appear 
in the allotment of such evils to men, is hence 
called by some theologians, just Hi a paedeutica, 
or pxdagogica. The justice of God, when 
thus exercised, has the same object with his 
penal justice — viz., the improvement and moral 
perfection of men ; but it differs from that in its 
internal nature and character, as appears from 
what has been said. There is an endless diver- 
sity in the characters of men ; and in his treat- 
ment of them God governs himself according to 
this difference of their characters, and guides 
them to happiness through different ways, and 
by different means ; and in doing this he clearly 
exhibits his wisdom and goodness. This truth 
is strikingly illustrated in Isa. xxviii. 23 — 29. 
As the husbandman cannot treat all his lands 
and all his fruits in the same manner, so neither 
can God treat all men alike ; but while he seek? 
for the improvement of all, he promotes it in one 
by prosperity, in another by adversity. 

[Note 2. — The causes for which God does 
anything, and also the ends which he would at- 
tain, may be sought either in himself ox without 
himself, in the world which he has made ; in 
other words, they are either subjective or objec- 
tive. But because he is entirely independent 
and absolutely perfect, the highest and last 
grounds of what he does must be sought in his 
own nature ; and to these the objective reasons 
of his conduct must be subordinate. And so, 
when we inquire for the final cause of the re- 
wards and punishments which God distributes 
in the exercise of his retributive justice, we must 
look for it in God himself; and to this we must 
subordinate any ends for this exercise which 
may be derived from the world which God has 
created. Now the nature of God, in which the 
last ground of his retributive justice is to be 
sought, has infinite moral perfection; for this 
perfect moral excellence residing in his nature 
God must have supreme regard and absolute 
love, and consequently he must feel an absolute 
pleasure in what is morally good, and displea- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



12S 



cure in what is morally evil. This necessary 
love to what is morally perfect is, then, the last 
ground of the divine justice. But in order to 
be consistent, he must act according to this love, 
and exhibit to the view of his moral creatures 
his approbation of good and disapprobation of 
evil ; and this is the last end of the retribution 
which he awards. And if there were no refor- 
mation of the individual offender, no warning 
of others, or any objective ground for the exer- 
cise of retributive justice, there would be suffi- 
cient ground for all that God does either to 
punish or reward, in his own absolute love of 
moral good and hatred of moral evil. The re- 
presentations of the Bible would certainly lead 
us to think that the feelings which prompt him 
in the punishment of the wicked are, his holy 
disapprobation of their conduct — his necessary 
hatred of their moral character. And when we 
enter into the feelings of the guilty subject of 
the divine judgments, does he not find reason 
enough in his own ill-desert for all which God 
inflicts upon him ; and would not all which he 
endures be sufficiently understood by him, if no 
advantage to himself or others occurred to his 
mind ] The justice of God is an absolute attri- 
bute, and demands itself to be satisfied ; and mo- 
ral evil has a real, intrinsic ill-desert, and ought 
to be punished. That God has sometimes the 
reformation of the offender in view in the pu- 
nishment which he inflicts, and that he seeks 
the moral perfection of men in the displays of 
his attributes, is*perfectly true ; these ends, how- 
ever, so far from being the only or the highest 
reasons of retribution, are subordinate to the sa- 
tisfaction of divine justice. — Tr.] 

2. The different kinds of punishment which 
God inflicts. 

(a) Natural — i. e., such unhappy conse- 
quences as flow from the internal nature of sin- 
ful actions; incommoda nccessaria malo, sive 
male factis, nexa, as Morus describes them. 
These, like natural rewards, have their ground 
in the wise constitution which God himself has 
given to the natural world. That natural pu- 
nishments are really inflicted is shewn by daily 
experience. Sin everywhere draws upon itself 
remorse, disgrace, bodily disease, &c. And 
these natural consequences of sin, like the na- 
tural consequences of virtue, are greater than is 
commonly supposed, and often unlimited in their 
extent, as will be hereafter shewn in connexion 
with the doctrine of endless future punishment. 
" Sin punishes itself." 

(6) Positive, arbitrary — i. e., such as stand 
in no natural and necessary connexion with the 
sinful actions of men, or which do not flow 
from the internal nature of such actions, but are 
connected with them by the mere will of the 
legislator, and are additional to the natural con- 
sequences of sin. According- to the common 



theory on this subject, with which the Bible 
agrees, such positive divine judgments are in- 
flicted by God, on account of the inadequacy of 
natural judgments alone to effect the moral im- 
provement of men, and to deter them from sin. 
In order, therefore, to preserve inviolate the 
authority of his law, he connected positive judg- 
ments with the natural consequences of sin, 
which alone were insufficient for this purpose. 
In the infliction of these arbitrary sufferings, he 
is governed by the rules of infinite wisdom and 
love, and not by blind caprice. 

Positive punishments are divided into present 
and future. The present are those which take 
place in this life ; and in proof of them we may 
refer to the passages of the Old Testament 
where they are threatened to the disobedient Is- 
raelites — e. g., 2 Sam. xii. 10, 11, 14; Acts, v 
5, 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 3—5. 

Future positive punishments are those which 
are threatened in the next world. From many 
expressions of the New Testament we are un- 
doubtedly led to expect positive punishments in 
the future world. Cf. Art. xv. It must cer- 
tainly be considered inconsistent for any one to 
object to positive punishments in another world 
who expects positive rewards. Such an one 
has certainly very much the appearance of con- 
forming his belief to his wishes, and of admit- 
ting positive rewards because he desires them, 
and denying positive punishments because he 
fears them. 

It was with reference to the positive punish- 
ments of sin that the atonement of Christ was 
principally made ; for the natural consequences 
of sin are not wholly removed by virtue of his 
death. The bodily disorders incurred by the 
sinner in consequence of his vices do not wholly 
cease, though they may indeed be abated and 
alleviated by his becoming a sincere believer in 
Christ as the Saviour of the world. Those who 
deny the existence of positive punishments 
hereafter consider that Christ by his atonement 
has freed us merely from the fear of punish- 
ment — a notion which is inconsistent with the 
declarations of the New Testament, as will be 
shewn in the Article respecting Christ. 

In speaking of the positive divine judgments 
which take place in this life, the teacher of reli- 
gion is liable to do injury, and should therefore 
wisely consider his words. It is true, doubt- 
less, that positive punishments do take place in 
the present world ; but it is also true that we are 
unable, in given cases, to determine decisively 
whether the sufferings which we witness are, or 
are not, positive judgments from the hand of 
God. To consider plague, famine, and physical 
evils of every sort befalling an individual or 
nation as in every case the consequence of moral 
evil, is an error to which the multitude is much 
inclined. They frequently refer in these cases 



124 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to the very sins which have occasioned these 
divine judgments, as they denominate the cala- 
mities which befall their fellow men. And this 
injurious prejudice has been not a little strength- 
ened by the incautious manner in which the 
teachers of religion have sometimes spoken on 
this subject. It is perfectly right to consider 
pestilence in general as a divine judgment, and 
for the religious teacher, during such visitations 
from God, to remind men of their sins ; but it is 
not right to pronounce, as it were, a definite 
judicial sentence upon the guilt of a particular 
person or country visited in such a manner. 
Experience and scripture both disapprove of 
this ; for we often see that these calamities cease 
before the alleged cause of them is removed ; 
and they befall the good and bad equally, and 
without distinction. As God causes the sun to 
shine and the rain to descend upon the evil and 
the good, so he sends tempest, flood, and con- 
flagration, upon one as well as the other. In- 
deed, the best men often suffer, while the worst 
prosper; from which the fair conclusion is, that 
nothing can be determined concerning the moral 
character of men from the allotment of their ex- 
ternal circumstances. Vide No. I. of this sec- 
tion. The sacred writers concur entirely in these 
views. The friends of Job concluded from his 
bodily ills that he must have committed great 
sins ; but Job shews (v. 10, 12) that God often 
visits persons with sufferings which are not 
occasioned by their sins. Christ says, Luke, 
xiii. 2, 4, that the Galileans whom Pilate had 
caused to be executed at Jerusalem, and the 
eighteen men upon whom a tower had fallen, 
were not sinners more than others because they 
had suffered these things. He corrected his 
disciples when they ascribed the misfortune of 
the man born blind to the sin of his parents, 
and taught them that they ought not to conclude 
that particular misfortunes were the sure conse- 
quence of particular crimes, John, ix. 3. Those 
who advocate the practice to which allusion has 
been made cannot justly plead in their defence 
the passages in the Old Testament, where pest, 
famine, failure of the harvest, destruction by 
enemies, and various other positive punishments 
in this life are frequently threatened for certain 
definite transgressions of the divine commands ; 
for we have now no prophets to come forth among 
us, as among the Israelites, as the messengers and 
authorized ambassadors of God. The civil go- 
vernment of the Israelites was theocratic — i. e., 
God was acknowledged by the Israelites to be 
their civil ruler; and the leaders of their armies, 
their earthly kings, their priests and prophets, 
were considered by them as his authorized ser- 
vants. Hence all their laws were published in 
the name of God — i. e., at the divine command, 
and under the divine authority. And in the 
same manner the temporal rewards connected 



with obedience, and the temporal punishments 
connected with disobedience, were announced 
as coming from him. From what has been 
said, we draw the conclusion, that external 
blessings or calamities are not to be considered 
in particular cases as the reward of good actions, 
or the punishment of bad, except where God has 
expressly declared that these very blessings, or 
these very calamities, are allotted to this indivi- 
dual person, on account of the good or bad ac- 
tion specified ; as Lev. xxvi., Deut. xxviii., Re- 
velation, ii. 22, 23. Additional remarks con- 
cerning natural and positive punishments will 
be made in the Article on Sin, s. 86, 87. 



APPENDIX. 
SECT. XXXII. 

OF THE DECREES OF GOD. 

The doctrine of the divine decrees depends 
upon the freedom of the will of God, and upon 
his wisdom, goodness, and justice. It may 
therefore properly succeed the discussion of 
these subjects in the foregoing sections. 

I. General Statement, and Scholastic Divisions. 

1. Definition of the decrees of God. By these 
we mean, the will of God that anything should 
come into existence, or be accomplished, (Morus, 
p. 51,) or, the free determinations of God re- 
specting the existence of any object extrinsic to 
himself. 

2. The nature and attributes of the divine de- 
crees. These are the same as were ascribed to 
the divine will, because the decrees of God are 
only expressions of his will. The decrees of 
God are, properly speaking, {a) only one single 
decree. They were all made at one and the 
same time. Before we can come to a determina- 
tion of the will, it is often necessary for us to 
institute laborious investigations and inquiries, 
since we cannot survey all the reasons on both 
sides of a subject at a single glance. And it is 
on account of this limitation of our understand- 
ings that all our determinations are successive. 
But no such succession takes place in the mind 
of God ; he knows all things at once. Vide s. 
22. And so, properly speaking, the decree to 
make the world, and every single decree re- 
specting everything which exists, or has been 
done in it from the beginning, are only one en- 
tire decree. But we represent to our minds as 
many different decrees as there are particulars 
comprehended in this one universal decree. (Jb) 
The divine decrees arefrce. Nothing can com- 
pel God to decree what is contrary to his 
will or understanding. His decrees, however, 
though free, are never blind and groundless. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



125 



Vide s. 23. Cf. Ephes. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 9. (c) 
They are benevolent, always intended for the 
good of the creatures of God. Ephes. i., Rom. 
viii., ix. That they are so follows from the 
goodness, holiness, and justice of God ; s. 
23 — 31 inclusive, (d) Eternal and unalterable. 
Vide s. 20, and especially s. 26, ad finem. Cf. 
Morus, p. 53, s. 15. Whence the Bible often 
says, God determined such a thing, rfpo xu.ro.- 
3o?.-?j xotuov, Ephes. i. 4 ; art' or npb aLJzvcov. 
IIpo, in rtpoyivcotfxatv, rtpoopi-^W, x. f . ?.., denotes 
the same thing. God existed from eternity; 
and as he exists without succession of time, all 
of his decrees must be as eternal as himself, 
and as immutable as his own nature. Rom. 
xi. 29, du.Braai7.rr a. Heb. vi. IT, ro dusrd^arop 
r?i 3ot7.rcQsov. (e) Unsearchable, dvc^spavirra, 
d.v£%i%vio.5Ta, Romans, xi. 33 — 36 ; 3dh-r Qsov, 
1 Cor. ii. 10 ; Isaiah, Iv. 8. Cf. Moras, p. 46, 
s. 10, note 4. We see but a small part of the 
immeasurable whole which God surveys at a 
glance, and are incapable, therefore, of compre- 
hending, in its whole extent, the immeasurable 
and eternal plan of God, or of determining a 
priori what he ought to have decreed. The 
attempt to decide what God has determined to 
be done by conclusions drawn from particular 
attributes cf his nature, of which we hare such 
imperfect notions in our present state, is attend- 
ed with the greatest danger of mistake. For us 
to undertake to say that this and the other thing 
is good and desirable, and therefore must be, 
or has been, done by God, is what the Bible 
calls wishing to teach God, 1 Cor. ii. 16. We 
can learn what God has actually decreed only 
from seeing what events have actually taken 
place. From the existence of the world, we 
conclude that God decreed to create it; from the 
existence of evil, we conclude that God decreed 
to permit it, &c. And although we are taught 
expressly in the Bible that God decreed to send 
Christ into the world, (1 Cor. ii. 9, seq.,) we 
are also taught to note the event, the effects of his 
mission, and from thence to conclude what the 
will and purpose of God is. 

3. Division of the divine decrees. They are 
divided, as far as they relate to moral beings, 
into absolute and conditional, like the divine 
will. Vide s. 25, II. 2. 

{a) Absolute decrees are not such as are made 
without reason in the exercise of arbitrary 
power, but such as are made without reference 
to the free actions of moral beings, or without 
being dependent for their accomplishment upon 
a condition. The decrees of God to create the 
world, to send Christ to redeem it, to bestow 
external prosperity, advantages for intellectual 
improvement, or the knowledge of the gospel, 
upon one people or individual, and to deny them 
to another, and all his determinations of this 
nature, are called absolute decrees ; because, 



though made in view of wise and good reasons, 
they do not depend for their accomplishment 
upon the free actions and the true character cf 
moral beings. In the allotment of temporal or 
earthly good, riches, honour, health, &c, the 
rule by which God proceeds is not always the 
worthiness of men. We do net mean that virtue 
always and necessarily induces suffering and 
persecution, (as some have concluded, from a 
false interpretation of such texts as Matt. v. 10, 
seq.; 2 Tim. iii. 12, &c.) Pure Christian vir- 
tue, on the contrary, often brings along with it 
great temporal advantages, Rom. xii. IT, seq. 
We simply mean, that in imparting these exter- 
nal advantages, God is often governed by other 
principles than regard to the obedience or dis- 
obedience of his moral creatures. 

(S) Conditional decrees are those in making 
which God has respect to the free actions of 
moral beings. These conditional decrees are 
founded upon that fore-knowledge* of the free 
actions of men which we are compelled to as- 
cribe to God. Vide s. 22. God foresaw from 
eternity how every man would act, and whether 
he would comply with the conditions under 
which the designs of God concerning him would 
take effect, or would reject them ; and upon this 
fore-knowledge he founded his decree. Of this 
class are the decrees of God respecting the 
spiritual and eternal welfare of men. They are 
always founded upon the free conduct of men, 
and are never absolute, but always conditional. 
We are not, however, to regard these spiritual 
gifts as in any sense deserved by the moral 
agent, when he complies with the prescribed 
conditions; Luke, xvii. 10. The decree re- 
specting the eternal welfare of men is called, by 
way of eminence, predestination, in the limited 
sense; for all God's eternal decrees are called 
predestination in the larger sense. This name 
has been used, in this more limited sense espe- 
cially, since the time of Augustine ; from the 
fact that the word prsedestinare was employed 
by the Vulgate to render the Greek *poop£*wr, 
in Rom. viii. 29, 30, which was then referred 
to the decrees of God respecting the salvation 
and condemnation of men. The decree of God 
respecting the eternal blessedness of the pious, 
was then called electio, decretum election-is, pre- 
destinatio ad vitam. The decree respecting the 
punishment of sinners in the future world was 
called reprobatio, decretum reprobationis. prcdes- 
tinatio ad mortem. These words too are de- 
rived from the New Testament, especially from 
Rom. viii. ; where, however, they are used in a 
different sense. The election, ixftoyq, there 
spoken of, is the gracious reception of Jews and 
heathen into the Christian society; and the re- 
jection is the denial or withdrawment of this 
and other divine blessings, as will appear from 
No. II. 

l2 



126 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



II. Scriptural Representation, and the Errors occa- 
sioned by False Interpretation. 

1 . Scriptural representation. 

The following are the principal expressions 
employed in the Bible in relation to the decrees 
of God. (a) All the words which signify to 
my, speak, command. The phrase, God says, 
often means, he wills, he decrees, Ps. xxxiii. 9. 
So frequently -m, nvsp, bi. (b) The words 
which signify to think, are often used to denote 
the divine decrees; as norp, msirnp, hioXoytc^oL, 
Ps. xxxiii. 10, 11 ; Is. lv. 8. Hence the phrases, 
to speak with one's self, to say in one's heart, often 
mean, to consider, determine. Saying in his 
heart, was the manner in which the Hebrew de- 
noted thinking — an instance of the ancient sim- 
plicity of language, corresponding with the 
phrase of the Otaheitans, speaking in one's belly. 
(c) Kpl/xa, BStJfp, sentence ,- representing God as 
a judge or ruler, who publishes edicts and pro- 
nounces sentence ; Ps. xxxvi. 6, 7 ; Rom. xi. 
33. (c?) 'OSoj, "i-n, way. The way of God sig- 
nifies his manner of thinking or acting, his con- 
duct ,• Ps. cxlv. 17, " Gracious is Jehovah in all 
his ways" — i. e., decrees; Rom. xi. 33, 6Sol 

(e) The following occur more frequently in 
the New Testament: ©i'krjua, svSoxua, in He- 
brew, fsn, jfin, used particularly to denote God's 
gracious purpose. Vide s. 25. npo^fcrtj, Ephes. 
i. 11, where it is synonymous with fiovhrj §s%r}- 
/tatoj, 2 Tim. i. 9, seq., and Rom. ix. 11, I'va 57 
tiov ©sou rtpo^ECits xat' exhoyr}v fiiwy — i. e., SO 
that the divine purpose must remain free, must 
be acknowledged to be according to his own 
choice. Hpoyiv«i(Sxsw. This verb, like the He- 
brew jhi, and yvwvat and e'ISsvch,, very frequently 
signifies to decree, (metonymia caussae pro 
effectu.) In this sense it is often used by Philo. 
In Acts, ii. 23, it is used to denote the purpose 
of God, that Christ should suffer and die. 
Now since the verba cognoscendi frequently sig- 
nify, among the Hebrews, to love, to wish well, 
rtpoywotftj very often signifies, by way of emi- 
nence, the gracious and benevolent purpose of 
God, which he entertained from eternity for the 
welfare of men. Thus rfpoynoca? in 1 Pet. i. 2, 
denotes the gracious purpose of God respecting 
the admission of men to the privileges of the 
Christian church; Rom. viii. 29, ovj rtposyvco, 
his beloved, those whose welfare he seeks ; Rom. 
xi. 2. 'Oj)i^svv and rfpoop^W, commonly ren- 
dered in the Vulgate prxdestinare. 'Opt'^stv is 
to determine, in the general sense; and in this 
sense it is said, Acts, xi. 29, that the apostles 
wptcrav x. Tf. %. The divine purpose is therefore 
called wp«fytlvJ7 ^ovXtj, decretum voluntatis divinse, 
Acts, ii. 23. In the classics, opw^oj is purpose, 
determination. IIpoopt£W is properly decernere 
antequam existat ,- because the decrees of God 
are eternal, as, Acts, iv. 28, the Jews conspired 



to do "whatever thy counsel rfpowpKjs ys«/£<j§a», 
before determined to be done." The word rtpoopt- 
£uv, when used in reference to men, never de- 
notes exclusively .the divine purpose respecting 
their eternal salvation or condemnation, but rather 
respecting their admission to the Christian 
church, to partake both of the rights and privi- 
leges, and also of the sorrows and sufferings of 
Christians. So it is used, Ephes. i. 5, npooptcjas 
rj/xdg tis vlo^sdiav 8ta 'ItjGov Xpt-cr-r'ou — i. e., he 
purposed to bring lis into the Christian church, 
and thus to make us his children — his beloved 
friends. That this is the meaning of the apos- 
tle appears from verses 11, 12. The same is 
true of the passage, Romans, ix., which does 
not treat of the eternal salvation or condemnation 
of men, but of the temporal benefits, and the ex- 
ternal civil and church privileges, which God 
confers upon particular persons and nations in 
preference to others. Vide s. 28. The passage, 
Rom. viii. 28, 29, seq., so often and entirely 
misunderstood, must be interpreted in a similar 
manner. Paul had spoken, verses 19, 20, seq., 
of the sufferings and persecutions which Chris- 
tians were at that time called to endure. He 
endeavours to console them in the midst of their 
distresses, and to shew the blessedness in 
which their afflictions might result. " We are 
confident that all things (even afflictions and 
persecutions) will conspire for the good of those 
who love God, and are called, in pursuance of 
the purpose of God, to partake of Christian pri- 
vileges, (T'otj tta-ra 7tpo$£tfw x%7]toi<; ovfftv.) For 
he has predestinated (rtpowptta) us, whom he 
thus graciously regarded from eternity (rfpoeyvo), 
to be conformed to the example of his Son, 
(viz., as in suffering, so in reward,) whom God 
has designed to be the forerunner (rtpotoTfoxov) 
of his many brethren, (first in suffering, then in 
reward.) But those whom he thus destined 
(to a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ) he 
adopts as members of the Christian church 
(tovtov$ Exa\suf), and alleviates the sorrows 
which they endure (for the sake of Christ) by 
granting forgiveness of their sins, and the hope 
of that future glory, (which Christ their fore- 
runner has received, and to which he will raise 
them.)" This passage, therefore, does not teach 
that God elects men to salvation, or dooms them 
to destruction, without respect to their moral 
conduct, but that the present sufferings of Chris- 
tians are alleviated by the external advantages 
which they enjoy as members of Christian so- 
ciety. Vide No. I. 

In the bestowment of spiritual and eternal 
blessings, it is absolutely essential that God 
should be governed solely by the moral conduc* 
of men. His goodness, justice, indeed, all his 
moral perfections, are infringed by the contrary 
supposition. We are taught also by the express 
assurances of scripture, standing on almost every 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



127 



page of the New Testament, and especially of 
the epistles of Paul, that God will reward and 
punish every man according to his works, Rom. 
ii. 6—11 ; Matt. xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor, v. 19. The de- 
crees of election and reprobation, then, according 
to the doctrine of scripture, are not absolute, but 
conditional, Mark, xvi. 16. 

The terms commonly employed in the schools 
respecting the decrees of God may be illustrated 
by the following syllogism : — Major : whoever 
believes in Christ to the end of his life, shall be 
saved, (this is rtpo^ccj, or sxtoyri, tne voluntas 
Dei antecedens.) Minor : Paul will believe to 
the end of his life (this is ytpdyvwctj, prasvisio.} 
Conclusion : Therefore Paul will be saved, (this 
is Ttpoopi6/x6<;, voluntas Dei consequens, decretum.) 
Since, now, the major term is here an universal 
proposition, but the minor particular, it is easily 
seen in what sense the grace of God can be 
scripturally denominated universal and particu- 
lar. It is the same with the decree of reproba- 
tion. 

2. Errors occasioned principally by false inter- 
pretation. 

The opinion has long existed in the church, 
that the decrees of election and reprobation were 
absolute — i. e., that without respect to their mo- 
ral character, God selected from the human race 
a certain number, (many say very few,) and 
destined them to eternal happiness; and, on the 
other hand, rejected others (by far the greater 
part of the human race, — seven perhaps in ten) 
in the same arbitrary manner, and destined them 
to eternal condemnation. This error is called 
predestination, and the advocates of it predestina- 
tionists, or particular ists. This doctrine, it has 
been justly remarked, if carried out into all its 
logical consequences, would destroy the freedom 
of the human will, and thus undermine the foun- 
dations of morality. But it has not been carried 
out to its legitimate consequences, in theory or 
practice, by those who have professed it. And 
many of the soundest moralists and most vir- 
tuous men are found, by a happy inconsistency, 
among the advocates of this doctrine. 

The principal sources of this error are the fol- 
lowing: {a) False opinions respecting the free- 
dom of the divine will, by which it is represented 
as a blind caprice, in the exercise of which God 
pardons or condemns without reason, like a hu- 
man despot, (vide s. 26,) and in connexion with 
these, false conceptions of the goodness, justice, 
and other moral attributes of God, and of their 
connexion with his natural attributes. (6) The 
want of discrimination between the decrees of 
God respecting the allotment of temporal and 
earthly good, and those respecting the gift of 
spiritual blessings and eternal life. But more 
than all, (c) the misinterpretation of Rom. viii. 
9, by which these passages are made to relate 
to eternal salvation and condemnation, instead 



of temporal privileges. This Interpretation was 
introduced by Augustine, who, however excel- 
lent in other respects, was deficient in his ac- 
quaintance with the language of scripture, and 
therefore exhibits here none of his usual ability. 
Vide s. 26. (<f) A similar misunderstanding 
of other texts of scripture, especially of the de- 
claration of Christ, Matt. xx. 16, Tto%%ol dm 
x'krjtoi, 6%'iyoi hh ix"Ktxtol' This has been sup- 
posed to mean, that there are many who are 
nominally and externally Christians, but few 
only who are chosen to eternal salvation. But 
the extextot are here only the more eminent, 
select saints, (the Hebrew onTia.) Thus the 
passage would mean : among the many who are 
externally Christians, (admitted into the Chris- 
tian church,) there are only a few whom God 
counts as his peculiar people — i. e., few who live 
conformably to the precepts of Christianity, and 
are in all respects such as they should be. That 
this is the true sense of these -words appears 
from the parable, Matt. xxii. 2 — 13, at the end 
of which (ver. 14) they are repeated. 

Again: the text, Acts, xiii. 48, has been ap- 
pealed to in proof of this doctrine, from igno- 
rance of the usus loquendi of the Bible; xoi 
£7ti6T?ev6av dooi rfiav Tfstay^evoo sl$ £tor t v aiu>viov. 
Those who believed are here opposed to those 
who (ver. 46) made themselves unworthy of eter- 
nal life — (viz. by unbelief.) The phrase is syno- 
nymous with ol aavtovs i?d%avi?£$ £t$ ^cotjv aiuiviov, 
those who prepared themselves for eternal life — the 
pious, virtuous. The Greeks frequently express 
reciprocal action by passive verbs, especially in 
the preter. The meaning here becomes suffi- 
ciently evident by a comparison of ver. 46. 

Brief history of the doctrine of unconditional 
decrees. 

The controversy in which Augustine engaged 
with the Pelagians led him to maintain the doc- 
trine of absolute decrees. In contending against 
the errors of his opponents he fell into the oppo- 
site extreme, and asserted the doctrine of uncon- 
ditional decrees concerning salvation and con- 
demnation, and then his doctrine de gratia 
particulari et irresisiibili, (s. 132.) In conse- 
quence of the high authority of Augustine, this 
doctrine prevailed extensively in the African and 
Latin churches during the fifth and sixth centu- 
ries. During the former part of this period, 
particularly, it was urged against the doctrine 
of the Pelagians by Prosper of Aquitania and 
Lucidus, presbyter in France. And indeed it 
was alternately defended and opposed in the 
western church during the whole of this and 
the following century. 

This doctrine was again maintained in the 
ninth century by Gottschalk, a monk at Orbais, 
in France, and a zealous follower of Augustine. 
It became the subject of vehement discussion, 
and was at length condemned as heretical by a 



128 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



council at Gfiiersy, in the year 849. But this 
decision was not universally accepted ; and the 
doctrine of predestination still had many advo- 
cates, among whom were Thomas Aquinas, in 
the thirteenth century, and his followers, the 
Dominicans and other Thomists. 

This controversy was renewed with great 
vehemence in the Romish church during the 
seventeenth century, on occasion of the writings 
of Jansenius, Bishop at Ypern, in the Nether- 
lands. The Jesuits and the Pope took sides 
against the doctrine of absolute decrees. But 
the Dominicans, and other warm admirers of 
Augustine, agreed with Jansenius, and there are 
many stanch Jansenists in France at the pre- 
sent day. 

This doctrine, which owes its origin to Augus- 
tine, was adopted again in the sixteenth century 
by Calvin and Beza, the Swiss reformers, and 
by them disseminated through their church. 
[The symbols of the reformed church, in which 
the doctrine of Calvin is acknowledged, are, 
the Concensus paslorum eccl. Genev., (1551 an 
1554.,) — Conf. Galicana, Art. xi., (1559,) — 
Conf. Belgica, Art. xvi., — Catechismus Heidel- 
bergensis, (1562 and 1503.)] At first, this doc- 
trine was at least partially believed even by 
Luther and Melancthon, but there is no trace of 
it in the writings of Zuingle. 

It was not without controversy, however, that 
the doctrine of Calvin prevailed in the reformed 
church. During the seventeenth century it was 
opposed by Arminius and his followers. But it 
was at length established as an article of faith 
in the reformed church by the national synod at 
Dordrecht, in the years 1618, 1619, and the Ar- 
minians were placed beyond the pale of the 
church. By degrees, however, this severe doc- 
trine has been abandoned even in the reformed 
church, its hardest features being first softened 
down through the influence of the doctrine of 
universal redemption. It was maintained for the 
longest time in the Netherlands and in Switzer- 
land ; though it has but few advocates in the Ne- 
therlands at the present day. In England the 
number of its friends is still considerable. Cf. 
the history of the doctrine of grace, s. 132. 

Note. — In the above statement of the Lutheran 
view of the doctrine of divine decrees, there is of 
course much which must be objectionable to a 
Calvinist; far less, however, than in the state- 
ment of this subject usually made by Lutheran 
writers. Our author treats the doctrine of his 
Calvinistic opponents with a justice and mild- 
ness quite unusual with the theologians of his 
church. In general, there are no epithets too vio- 
lent for them to heap upon the doctrine of abso- 
lute decrees, and no evasions too weak for them 
to employ to escape the force of the arguments 
by which it is supported. That the Calvinistic 
doctrine >f decrees should be rejected and ca- 



lumniated by men who reject those scriptura. 
truths upon which it depends, might be expected ; 
but that it should be thus treated by those who 
hold, in common with its advocates, those doc- 
trines of grace from which it inevitably results, 
is somewhat surprising. After taking the li- 
berty to make a few general remarks upon some 
particular representations of our author, I shall 
endeavour to shew, that the Lutherans are charge- 
able, with obvious inconsistency in opposing the 
Calvinistic theory of decrees, while they adhere to 
the standard confession of their church. With re- 
gard to the representations of Dr. Knapp, it may 
be remarked, 

First. That he is not exactly just in describ- 
ing the theory of absolute decrees as involving 
the election and reprobation of men without re- 
spect to conditions. The advocates of this theory 
insist, equally with others, that men must be- 
lieve in order to be saved ; and the question be- 
tween them and their opponents is, In what re- 
lation this faith, which is essential to salvation, 
stands to the purpose of God? 

Secondly. When he describes the called, 
chosen, elect, so often mentioned in the New 
Testament as those who were made partakers 
only of the external privileges of Christianity, 
and not those who were heirs of future happi- 
ness, does he not violate the whole spirit and 
usage of the New Testament, without yet avoid- 
ing the difficulty 1 If the intimate connexion be- 
tween the enjoyment of the external privileges of 
Christianity and securing its spiritual and ever- 
lasting blessings is considered, will there not be 
the same objections to the sovereign appointment 
of men to one as to the other'? 

Thirdly. Instead of saying that predestina- 
tionists are distinguished for depth of religious 
sentiment and strictness of moral practice not- 
withstanding their principles, as our auther and 
others generously concede, is it not apparent 
that they are so in consequence of their principles 1 
The perfect safety of their theory of election has 
been often satisfactorily proved by reformed the- 
ologians in answer to the objections urged against 
its moral tendencies. But its direct bearing 
upon the religious life has not been so often ex- 
hibited. It is therefore the more worthy of no- 
tice, that Tholuck (whose Commentary on the 
ninth of Romans will sufficiently free him from 
any suspicion of leaning towards Calvinism) 
concedes, in his Treatise on Oriental Mysticism, 
that the doctrine of predestination, so far from 
producing the despondency and inaction often 
ascribed to it, on the contrary, moves and excites 
the inmost soul, by the self-surrender which it 
demands to the all-prevailing will of God. To 
the influence of this doctrine he attributes what- 
ever of religious life there exists among thos6 
who receive the sensual dogmas of the Koran. 
Every one, he says, acquainted with eastern lite- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



129 



rature, knows that the most strong and vivid 
religious experiences are connected with and 
arise from the belief in predestination. And 
Calvinism, he allows, is incomparably more fa- 
vourable to the deeper religious life than that 
doctrine by which the will of God is limited or 
conditioned by the human will — i. e., the syn- 
cretism of the Lutheran church. 

Fourthly. The suggestion of Dr. Knapp, that 
Augustine was first induced to adopt his theory 
oi election by his controversy with Pelagius, 
contains the implication that this theory owes 
its origin to polemical excitement, and was 
adopted by its author in order to extricate him- 
self from some embarrassments, or as the oppo- 
site extreme of the theory against which he con- 
tended. But this is not only wanting in historical 
evidence, but is in itself improbable. The De- 
eretum Absolution of Augustine is the direct result 
of his views of the natural character of man, and 
is necessary to complete that system of truth 
which he adopted. To the belief of this doc- 
trine he would naturally be led by the cool deli- 
beration of the closet, and it therefore more pro- 
bably belonged to those original convictions 
which impelled him to the controversy with Pe- 
lagius, and animated him in prosecuting it, than 
to any after convictions to which he might have 
been driven by opposition. Which now, it may 
be asked, looks most like the offspring of the 
contrivance and heat of controversy, the theory 
of Augustine, coming forward with direct affirm- 
ations, and belonging essentially to his system, 
or the opposite theory, consisting mostly of eva- 
sions, negations, and limitations 1 To assert 
the doctrine of the divine sovereignty and of the 
all-controlling will of God would seem to be the 
part of the consistent, philosophical theologian ; 
to deny it, the business of a timorous modera- 
tion, of a time-serving policy, or of the native 
pride and self-sufficiency of man. 

The inconsistency chargeable upon the Lu- 
theran theologians who oppose the Calvinistic 
theory of decrees may be briefly stated thus: 
According to their theory, God ordains to salva- 
tion those of whom he foresees that they will 
believe; but according to the Augsburg Con- 
fession, it is the Holy Spirit qui efficit fidem, 
quando et ubi visum est Deo, who produces faith 
when and where it seems good to God,- both com- 
bined, therefore, furnish us the doctrine that God 
ordains to salvation those of whom he foresees that 
he who causes faith to exist when and where it 
seems good to him, will give them the Holy Spirit 
to produce faith in their hearts, which is the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine so often opposed and denounced 
by the Lutherans. They join together, in their 
Book of Concord, the Augsburg Confession, in 
which man's moral inability and entire depend- 
ence on divine grace are strongly asserted, and 
their Declaration, in which the absolute decrees 
17 



of God — an inevitable consequence of these doc- 
trines — is denounced as unscriptural and dan- 
gerous. Surely here Concordia is discors. 

This discrepancy could not long remain unnO' 
ticed in a country where theological opinions are 
subjected to so rigid a scrutiny. The Lutheran 
theologians appear, however, to have imagined, 
for a time, that they could reconcile the opposing 
tendencies of their system, and attempted so to 
modify the doctrine of man's moral inability as 
to guard against any approach to Calvinism. 
The best attempt of this nature is exhibited by 
Storr, in his Biblical Theology ; but it cannot 
be thought successful. To many it soon became 
evident that they were reduced to the alternative 
of retaining the Augsburg Confession and the 
doctrine of man's moral inability, and then ad- 
mitting, as its inevitable consequence, the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of election, or of rejecting the 
Augsburg Confession, and thus escaping the 
necessity of Calvinism. 

During the recent attempt to unite the Lu- 
theran and reformed churches, their doctrinal dif- 
ferences came of course into new consideration ; 
and Dr. Bretschneider, in his Aphorisms pub- 
lished on that occasion, frankly acknowledged, 
what had not been done before, the inconsistency 
now charged upon the theologians of his church; 
and being himself somewhat inclined towards 
Pelagianism, unhesitatingly chose the second 
of the two courses above stated, and, in order 
to avoid Calvinism, willingly surrendered the 
Augsburg Confession, with the doctrine of man's 
inability and entire dependence on divine grace. 
But the. Augsburg Confession had long been es- 
teemed the palladium of the Lutheran church; 
and the doctrine of man's inability and depend- 
ence was dearer than almost any other to the 
heart of Luther, and was too firmly believed by 
the most distinguished theologians of his church, 
and had become too thoroughly interwoven with 
their system of faith, to be thus easily aban- 
doned. The only course remaining for those 
who wished to be consistent seemed therefore 
to be, to hold fast to the Augsburg Confession 
and its Anti-Pelagian doctrines, and to admit 
the Calvinistic theory of election as their natu- 
ral consequence. And this course was boldly 
adopted by Schleiermacher, one of the pro- 
foundest theologians of his church, and strenu- 
ously recommended by him in the first article 
of his " Theologische Zeitschrift." He there 
acknowledges that he had long been unable to 
sympathize with most of his contemporaries in 
condemning the theory of Augustine and Calvin 
as irrational and unscriptural. 

This unexpected publication gave a new im- 
pulse to the discussion of this doctrine, and some 
of the most distinguished theologians of Ger- 
many have been enlisted as disputants. "Whether 
under the auspices of Schleiermacher Ibjp doc- 



130 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



trine will fare better than under Gottschalk and 
Jansenius cannot be foretold. Long established 
prejudice may yet prevail over the love of truth 
and consistency. But whatever may be the re- 
sult of this local controversy, the doctrine has 
nothing to fear, being based on the triple found- 
ation of sound reason, Christian experience, and 
the word of God.— Tr.] 



ARTICLE IV. 

OF THE DOCTRINE OF FATHER, SON, AND 
HOLY GHOST. 



SECTION XXXIII. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

1. It is an established truth, that there are 
many things in the divine nature which are un- 
like anything which belongs to us, and of which, 
therefore, we have no knowledge. For, as has 
been already shewn, s. 18, II., it is impossible 
for us to form a distinct notion of any attributes 
or perfections which we ourselves do not pos- 
sess, oi even to see at all how such attributes 
can exist. To conclude, therefore, that any par- 
ticular attribute could not belong to the Divine 
Being, simply because we might be unable to 
understand it wholly, or perhaps at all, would be 
extremly foolish. Vide Introduction, s. 6, ad 
finem. If the Bible contains a more particular 
revelation of God, and if this revelation, in a clear 
and incontrovertible manner, proposes a doctrine 
of faith, then must such doctrine, however incom- 
prehensible and inexplicable, be received by us as 
true. That the Bible does contain such a reve- 
lation has already been maintained in the Intro- 
duction, and in the Article on the Holy Scrip- 
tures; that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught 
in this revelation remains now to be proved ; and 
upon the truth of these two propositions the 
whole subject depends. 

2. The doctrine of a Trinity in the godhead 
includes the three following particulars, (vide 
Morus, p. 69, s. 13,) — viz., (a) There is only 
ont God, one divine nature, s. 16 ; (b) but in this 
divine nature there is the distinction of Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, as three, (called subjects, 
persons, and other names of similar import in 
the language of the schools ;) and (c) these three 
have equally, and in common with one another, 
the nature and perfections of supreme divinity. 
This is the true, simple doctrine of the Trinity, 
when stripped of refined and learned distinctions. 
According to this doctrine there are in the divine 
nature three, inseparably connected with one 
another, possessing equal glory, but making 
unitedly only one God. 



This doctrine thus exhibited is called a mys- 
tery (in the theological sense), because there ia 
much in the mode and manner of it which is 
unintelligible. The obscurity and mystery ot 
this subject arise from our inability to answe: 
the question, In what sense and in what manner 
do these three so share the divine nature as to make 
only one God? But as the learned employed 
themselves in attempting to answer this ques- 
tion, and endeavoured, by the help of philosophy, 
to establish certain distinctions, they fell, of 
course, into explanations more or less opposed, 
and from this diversity of opinion, into strife and 
contention. They began to persecute those who 
dissented from some learned distinctions which 
they regarded as true, to denounce them as he- 
rectics, and to exclude them from salvation. 
In their zeal for their philosophical 'theories, 
they neglected to inculcate the practical conse- 
quences of this doctrine, and instead of joyfully 
partaking of the undeserved benefits which are 
bestowed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
they disputed respecting the manner of the 
union of three persons in one God. 

Jesus requires that all his followers should 
profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, (Matt, xxviii. 19;) and by so doing, he 
places this doctrine among the first and most es- 
sential doctrines of his religion. That it is sc 
is proved from many other declarations both of 
Jesus and his apostles. The doctrine is, more- 
over, intimately connected with the whole exhi- 
bition of Christian truth. It is not, therefore, a 
doctrine which any one may set aside at plea- 
sure, as if it were unessential, and wholly dis- 
connected with the system of Christianity. But 
while Jesus requires us to believe in the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, he has nowhere taught us 
or required us to believe the learned distinctions 
respecting this doctrine which have been intro- 
duced since the fourth century. The unde- 
served benefits which they had received from 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were the 
great subjects to which Jesus pointed his fol- 
lowers in the passage above cited, and in 
others ; that they were now able to understand 
and worship God in a more perfect manner, 
to approach him as their father and benefactor 
in spirit and in truth; that their minds were 
now enlightened by the instructions given 
them by the Son of God, who had been sent 
into the world to be their teacher, and that their 
souls were redeemed by his death; that in con- 
sequence of what Christ had already done, and 
would yet do, they might be advanced in moral 
perfection, and made holy — a work specially 
ascribed to the aids and influence of the Holy 
Spirit; these are the great truths which Jesus 
requires his followers to believe from the heart, 
in being baptized in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. He did not reveal this 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



13! 



doctrine to men to furnish them with matter for 
speculation and dispute, and did not, therefore, 
prescribe any formulas by which the one or the 
other could have been excited. The same is 
true of this doctrine as of the Lord's supper. 
Those who partake of this ordinance in the man- 
ner which Christ commanded, answer the ends 
for which it was instituted, and secure their 
spiritual profit, however much their views may 
differ with regard to the manner of Christ's pre- 
sence in the symbols. 

Besides, it is certain that no particular distinc- 
tions respecting this doctrine were enforced by 
the church as necessary conditions of commu- 
nion during the first three centuries. And ac- 
cordingly we find that Justin the Martyr, Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, Origen, and other distin- 
guished men of the catholic party, made use of 
expressions and representations on this subject 
which are both discordant with each other, and 
which differ totally from those which were 
afterwards established in the fourth century. 
Then for the first time, at the Nicene Council, 
under the influence of Athanasius, and in oppo- 
sition to the Arians, were those learned and 
philosophical formulas, which have since been 
retained in the system of the church, established 
and enforced. That a belief in these formulas 
should be declared essential to salvation, as is 
done in the Athanasian creed, cannot but be 
disapproved. This creed, however, was not 
composed by Athanasius nor was it even 
ascribed to him before the seventh century, 
though it was probably composed in the fifth. 
The principle that any one who holds different 
views respecting the Trinity, salvus esse non 
poterit, (to use the language of this symbol,) 
would lead us to exclude from salvation the 
great majority even of those Christians who re- 
ceive the doctrine and language of the Council 
of Nice; for common Christians, after all the 
efforts of their teachers, will not unfrequently 
conceive of three Gods in the three persons of the 
Godhead, and thus entertain an opinion which 
the creed condemns. But if the many pious 
believers in common life who entertain this 
theoretical error may yet be saved, then others 
who believe in Christ from the heart, and obey 
his precepts, who have a personal experience 
of the practical effects of this doctrine may 
also be saved, though they may adopt other 
particular theories and formulas respecting 
the Trinity different from that commonly re- 
ceived. These particular formulas and theo- 
ries, however much they may be regarded and 
insisted upon, have nothing to do with salva- 
tion. And this leads us to remark, that learned 
hypotheses, refined distinctions, and technical 
phrases, should never be introduced into popu- 
lar instruction. They will never be intelligible 
to a common audience, and will involve the 



minds of the common people and of the young 
in the greatest perplexity and confusion. So 
judged at one time the Emperor Constantine: 
ov 6ft tolas ^rfivptis v6/.iov tLvo$ avayxf; TtpoGfUT 1 - 

TfSLV, OV$£ T'OUS TldvtiAV G.XOO.I J OtTtpOKT/jTCOf TtltiTEVSlV, 

Epist. ad Arium, Ap. Socr. i. 7. Would that 
he himself had afterwards remained true to 
these principles ! [Vide Neander, Allg. Gesch. 
Christ, Rel., b. i. Abth. 2. s. 616.] 

Plan pursued in this Article. 

The theologians of former times generally 
blended their own speculations and those of 
others on the subject of the Trinity with the 
statement of the doctrine of the Bible. Within 
a few years a better plan has been adopted, 
which is, to exhibit first the simple doctrine of 
the Bible, and afterwards, in a separate part, 
the speculations of the learned respecting it. 
In pursuance of this plan we shall divide the 
present Article into two chapters, of which the 
first will contain the Biblical Doctrine of the 
Trinity, and the second, the History of this 
Doctrine, of all the changes it has undergone, 
and of the distinctions and hypotheses by which 
the learned in different ages have endeavoured 
to define and illustrate it. 



CHAPTER I. 

BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

SECTION XXXIV. 

IS THIS DOCTRINE TAUGHT IN THE OLD 

TESTAMENT? 

It has always been allowed that the doctrine 
of the Trinity was not fully revealed before the 
time of Christ, and is clearly taught only in the 
New Testament. But, at the same time, it was 
supposed from some passages in the Old Testa- 
ment that this doctrine was to a greater or less 
degree known to the Israelites at the time when 
the New Testament was written, at least that a 
plurality in the godhead was believed by them, 
although perhaps not exactly a Trinity. In 
proof of this opinion, such passages as Gen. i. 
26 were cited by Justin Martyr, Ireneeus, 
Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Theodoret, Gre- 
gory of Nyssa, Basil, and other ecclesiastical 
fathers. Vide Mangey on Philo, De Opif. 
mundi, p. 17. 

This opinion was universal in the protestant 
church during the sixteenth century, and at the 
beginning of the seventeenth. The first who 
questioned it was G. Calixtus, of Helmstadt, 
who in 1645 published an Essay, De Trinitate, 
and in 1649, another, De myster. Trinitatis, an 



.32 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ex solius V. T. libris possit demonstrari? He 
was, however, vehemently opposed by Abr. 
Calovius, and others. And the opinion for- 
merly held by the theologians continued to 
prevail even into the eighteenth century. But 
the opinion of Calixtus has since been revived, 
and has gradually obtained the approbation of 
most theologians of the present time, although 
there are still some who declare themselves in 
favour of the ancient opinion. 

The truth on this subject will probably be 
found in a medium between the extreme to 
which writers on both sides have frequently 
gone. (I) It is true, that if the New Testa- 
ment did not exist we could not derive the 
doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament 
alone. But (2) it is equally true, that by the 
manner in which God revealed himself in the Old 
Testament, the way was prepared for the more 
full disclosure of his nature that was afterwards 
made. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are 
frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, 
and the Son is represented as one through 
whom God will bestow blessings upon men, 
and the Holy Spirit is said to be granted to 
them for their sanctification. Vide Morus, p. 
59, s. 1, note 1, 2. But (3) respecting the in- 
timate connexion of these persons, or respecting 
other distinctions which belong to the doctrine 
of the Trinity, there is nothing said in the Old 
Testament. 

Many objections may be made against each 
particular text of the Old Testament, in which 
an allusion is perceived to a trinity or plurality 
in God. But these texts are so many in num- 
ber and so various in kind, that they impress 
an unprejudiced person, who considers thern 
all in connexion, with the opinion that such a 
plurality in God is indicated in the Old Testa- 
ment, though it was not fully developed or 
clearly defined before the Christian revela- 
tion. 

These texts may be arranged in the following 
classes : — 

1. Those in which the names of God have 
the form of the plural, and in which, therefore, 
a plurality in his nature seems to be indicated. 
The names D^riSs, •>ris, o^i-ip, iji, are cited as 
examples ; but they afford no certain proof, as 
they may be only the pluralis majestaticus of the 
Oriental languages. Vide s. 17. 

2. Texts in which God speaks of himself as 
many. But the plural in many of these cases 
can be accounted for from the use of the plural 
nouns dvhx,. tfw, iji. Philo thinks, (De Opif. 
Mundi, p. 17, ed. Mangey,) that in the pas- 
sage, Gen. i. 26, Let us make man, God ad- 
dresses the angels. Maimonides thinks the 
same of the passage, Gen. xi. 7, Let us go down 
and confound their language. Vide Mangey, 
in loc. It is not uncommon in Hebrew for 



kings to speak of themselves in the plural — 
e. g., 1 Kings, xii. 9; 2 Chron. x. 9; Ezra, iv. 
18. In Isaiah, vi. 8, God asks, who will go for 
us (u'?)'? where the plural form maybe explain- 
ed either as the pluralis majestaticus, or as de- 
noting an assembly for consultation. The 
chiefs of heaven (rpsnir) are described as there 
collected ; and God puts to them the question, 
whom shall we make our messenger ? as 1 Kincs, 
xxii. 20, seq. 

3. Texts in which ni'ir is distinguished from 
n<p^, and D"n?s from D^riSx. Jehovah rained brim- 
stone and fire from Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. 
our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, for the 
Lord's (Christ's ?) sake, Dan. ix. 17. But these 
texts, by themselves, do not furnish any deci- 
sive proof; for in the simplicity of ancient style 
the noun is often repeated instead of using the 
pronoun ; and so, from Jehovah may mean from 
himself; and for the Lordh sake may mean for 
thine own sake — i. e., on account of thy promise. 
Many other texts may be explained in the same 
way; as Hosea, i. 7; Zach. x. 12. In this con- 
nexion the passage, Ps. xlv. 7, is often cited : 
therefore, God (Messiah?), thy God (the Fa- 
ther) hath anointed thie. But the name dtiSn is 
sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not, 
therefore, necessarily prove that the person to 
whom it is here given must be of the divine na- 
ture. The passage, Ps. ex. 1, ij'-inS mrp dsj, 
"Jehovah said to my Lord," &c. is also cited. 
But -o'-w (Messiah) is here distinguished from 
Jehovah, and is not described as participating 
in the divine nature, but only in the divine go- 
vernment, as far as he was constituted Messiah 
by God. 

4. Texts in which express mention is made 
of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit. 

(a) Of the Son of God. The principal text 
in this class is Ps. ii. 7, Thou art my Son ,- this 
day have J begotten thee, coll. Psalm lxxii. 1 ; 
lxxxix. 27. This Psalm was always under- 
stood by the Jews, and by the writers of the 
New Testament, to relate to the Messiah. But 
he is here represented under the image of a 
king, to whose government, according to the 
will of God, all must submit. And it is the 
dignity of this office of king, or Messiah, of 
which the Psalmist appears here to speak. The 
name Son of God was not unfrequently given to 
kings ; it is not, therefore, nomen essentia, but 
dignitatis messianse. The passage would then 
mean, Thou art the king (Messiah) of my ap- 
pointment: this day have I solemnly declared 
thee such. That the phrase to-day alludes to the 
resurrection of Christ is proved by a reference 
to Acts, xiii. 30 — 34. The writers of the New 
Testament everywhere teach that Christ was 
proved to be the Messiah by his resurrection 
from the dead. Cf. Rom. i. 3, 4. In this 
Psalm, therefore, the Messiah is rather exhibited 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



133 



as King, divinely-appointed ruler, and head of 
the church, than as belonging to the divine 
nature. 

(b) Of the Holy Spirit. There are many texts 
of this class, but none from which, taken by 
themselves, the personality of the Holy Spirit 
can be proved, as it can easily be from passages 
in the New Testament. The term Holy Spirit 
may mean, in these texts, (1) The divine nature 
in general ; (2) particular divine attributes, as 
omnipotence, knowledge, or omniscience ; (3) 
the divine agency, which is its more common 
meaning. Vide s. 19, II. The principal pas- 
sage here cited is Isaiah, xlviii. 1G, where the 
whole doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be 
taught; irn-ri tjnW rvirr >P& nn>'i, And now Jehovah 
(the Father) and his Spirit (the Holy Ghost) 
hath sent me (the Messiah), inn has usually 
been rendered as if it were in the accusative ; 
but it is more properly rendered as a nominative 
-* in the Septuagint, the Syriac Version, also by 
Luther, and the English translators. It means 
here, as it always does when used by the pro- 
phets in this connexion, the direct, immediate, 
command of God. Cf. Acts, xiii. 2, 4. To say, 
then, the Lord and his Spirit hath sent me, is 
the same as to say, the Lord hath sent me by a 
direct, immediate command. 

5. Texts in which three persons are expressly 
mentioned, or in which there is a clear reference 
to the number three. In "this class the text, Ps. 
xxxiii. 6, was formerly placed : the heavens were 
made by the word (Aoyoj, Messiah) of Jehovah 
(the Father) ; and all the host of them by the 
spirit of his mouth. But by the word of the Lord, 
and the spirit of his mouth, nothing more is 
meant than by his command, will, as appears 
from the account of the creation. Cf. verse 9, 
"He spake and it was done; he commanded, 
and it stood fast." The threefold repetition of 
the name Jehovah in the benediction of the high 
priest, Num. vi. 24, is more remarkable: Jtho- 
vah bless thee, and keep thee ; Jehovah be gracious 
to thee ; Jehovah give thee peace. But the know- 
ledge of the Trinity at that early period cannot 
be concluded from a mere threefold repetition 
of the name of Jehovah, unless it is elsewhere 
exhibited in the writings of the same author. 
Of the same nature is the threefold repetition of 
the word holy by the seraphs, the invisible ser- 
vants of God, Isa. vi. 3. To account for this 
repetition we might suppose there were three 
heavenly choirs; but the question might then 
be asked, why these choirs were exactly three? 
It is certainly not impossible that the idea of a 
trinity in the godhead may be here presupposed, 
and also in the threefold benediction of the high 
priest. These choirs are represented in the com- 
mencement of the verse as singing one after 
another, in alternate response, nrVs n? sop. The 
word rnp might have been sung by each choir 



separately, and the last words, the whole earth 
is full oftny glory, by the three choirs united. 

Thus it appears that no one of the passages 
cited from the Old Testament in proof of the 
Trinity is conclusive, when taken by itself; but, 
as was before stated, when they are all taken 
together, they convey the impression that at 
least a plurality in the godhead was obscurely 
indicated in the Jewish scriptures. 

SECTION XXXV. 

OF THOSE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN 
WHICH FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE 
MENTIONED IN CONNEXION. 

Since the Old Testament proves nothing 
clearly or decidedly upon this subject, we must 
now turn to the New Testament. The texts 
from the New Testament which relate to the 
doctrine in question may be divided into two 
principal classes : (a) Those in which Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned in connexion ,• 
(b) Those in which these three subjects are men- 
tioned separately, and in which their nature and 
mutual relation is more particularly described. 
In this section we shall treat only of the first 
class. Bat the student will need to be on his 
guard here, lest he should deduce more from 
these texts, separately considered, than they 
actually teach. The doctrine of the Trinity 
in all its extent and in all its modifications is 
taught in no single passages in the New Testa- 
ment. The writings of the apostles always 
presuppose the oral instructions which they had 
given to the Christians whom they addressed, 
and do not therefore exhibit any regular and 
formal system of doctrines. Hence, in order 
to ascertain what the doctrines of the gospel 
are, we must compare different texts, and form 
our conclusion from the whole. The first class 
of texts, taken by itself, proves only that there 
are the three subjects above named, and that 
there is a difference between them ; that the 
Father in certain respects differs from the Son, 
&e. ; but it does not prove, by itself, that all the 
three belong necessarily to the divine nature, 
and possess equal divine honour. In proof of 
tills, the second class of texts must be adduced. 
The following texts are placed in this class : — 
1 Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20. While Jesus con- 
tinued in the world, he, and his disciples by his 
direction, had preached the gospel only among 
the Jews, Matt. x. 5. But now, as he is about 
to leave the earth, he commissions them to pub- 
lish his religion everywhere, without any dis- 
tinction of nation. He had received authority 
from God to establish a new church, to receive 
all men into it, and to exhibit himself as Lord of 
all, ver. 18 ; cf. John, xvii. 2, i^owsla nanrf 
aapxoi. Wherefore he requires his disciples, 
ver. 19, to tr forth and proselyte all nations, 
M 



134 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



(ix.a&jtsvtiafs rtdvta la e^vy.) They were to 
do this in two ways, — viz., by baptizing (part- 
t&ovtss, ver. 19), and by instructing, (8i8daxov- 
<te j, ver. 20.) They were required to baptize 
their converts, sl$ to bvo/xa (dk>3) tov Hovtpbs xai 
tov Ttov, xai tov dyiov Hvsvixatos — i. e., sis tov 
ILovtipa, x. t. %. To baptize in the name of a 
person or thing, means, according to the usus 
loquendi of the Jews, to bind one by baptism to 
profess his belief, or give his assent, or yield obe- 
dience, to a certain person or thing. The Tal- 
mudists say, the Samaritans circumcise their 
children in the name of Mount Gerizim, and 
Christians are asked, 1 Cor. i. 13, 15, were ye 
baptized hi the name of Paul? In 1 Cor. x. 3, 
it is said, rtdvt£$ (rtaWpsj) ej5a7ttiaavto £t$ 
Mwffijv, and in Acts, xix. 4, that John the Bap- 
tist £fia.7tt?iG£ sl$tbv £p%6(ievov. This text, taken 
by itself, would not prove decisively either the 
personality of the three subjects mentioned, or 
their equality, or divinity. For (a) the subject 
into which one is baptized is not necessarily a 
person, but may be a doctrine, or religion ; as, 
to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim. 
(b) The person in whom one is baptized is not 
necessarily God, asjBarti't'&ii' sis Mozarjv, IlavXov, 
x. t. %. (c) The connexion of these three sub- 
jects does not prove their personality or equality. 
A subject may swear fealty to his king, to the 
officer under whose immediate government he is 
placed, and to the laws of the land. But does 
this prove that the king, officer, and laws are 
three persons, and equal to one another? And 
so, the objector might say, the converts to 
Christianity might be required to profess by 
baptism theiracknowledgment of theFather, (the 
author of the great plan of salvation;) of the Son, 
(who had executed it;) and of the doctrines re- 
vealed by God (jtvtvixa ayiov), for the knowledge 
of which they were indebted to both the Father 
and the Son. But let it be once shewn from other 
texts that these subjects here mentioned are 
persons, and that they are equal to one another, 
and this construction is inadmissible. One 
thing, however, is evident from this text — viz., 
that Christ considered the doctrine respecting 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a fundamental 
doctrine of his religion, because he requires all 
his followers to be bound to a profession of 
it immediately on their being admitted as mem- 
bers of his church, by the initiatory rite of bap- 
tism. Vide Morus, p. 59, s. 2. 

2. 1 Pet. i. 2. Peter sends his salutations 
to Christians, and says to them, that they were 
admitted into the Christian church xatd rtpo- 
"/vwfftv ®-cOv rtatpbg, (i. e., according to the gra- 
cious decree of God,) iv dycaauq (for s£$ ayiac*- 
uov) TtvEvt.iatos, sis v7iaxor t v xai (fts) pavttG/xbv 
aL/xatos 'tycsov XptffT'ou, plainly referring to the 
above-mentioned obligations assumed by Chris- 
tians at baptism. The sense is, Ye are become 



Christians according to the eternal decree of God 
the Father, to the intent that ye should be made 
holy (morally perfect) through the Holy Spirit; 
and that ye should obey Jesus Christ, and obtain 
forgiveness through faith in his blood. But from 
what is here said of the Holy Spirit, it does not 
necessarily follow that he is a personal subject; 
nor from the predicates here ascribed to Christ, 
that he is necessarily divine; and so this pas- 
sage also, taken by itself, is insufficient. 

3. 2 Cor. xiii. 14, The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the 
Holy Spirit, be with you all. From the paral- 
lelism of the third member of this passage with 
the two former, we might perhaps infer the 
personality of the Holy Spirit. But from the 
mere collocation of the names of these persons, 
we could not justly infer that they possessed 
equal authority, or the same nature. 

4. John, xiv. 26. Here are three different 
personal subjects, — viz., 6 ILapdxXrjtos, 
II v s v jua to ay tov, b Tis/x-^ii b THatrjp iv 
ta bvouati uov (Xptcj-r'ot'). But that these 
three subjects have equal divine honour, and be- 
long to one divine nature, is not sufficiently 
proved from this passage, and can be argued 
with certainty only from texts of the second 
class. 

5. Matt. iii. 16, 17, where the baptism of 
Jesus by John is narrated, has been considered 
as a locus classicus upon this subject. So the 
ecclesiastical fathers considered it. Whence 
the celebrated formula, lad Jordanam, et vide- 
bis Trinitatem. This text was called by the 
ancients ^eofyavsid. Three personal subjects 
are indeed here mentioned — viz., the voice of 
the Father, the symbol of the Holy Spirit 
(rtfpttf-fepa) , and Christ; but nothing is here 
said respecting their nature ; and the phrase, 
Ttoj ®sov (ver. 17) does not always indicate the 
divine nature of Christ. This passage then, 
taken by itself, does not contain the whole doc- 
trine of the Trinity. 

But the sense of all these texts can be fully 
determined by the texts of the second class. 

As to the passage 1 John, v. 7, 8; — the words 
from tv tc> o-Opa^o, to iv t<*} yvj, must be allowed, 
on all critical principles, to be spurious. But 
even allowing the text to be genuine, it would 
afford no strong proof of the entire doctrine of 
the Trinity. Three subjects are indeed enume- 
rated, o Ha-trip, 6 A6yo$, and ?6 ayiov JIvsvfxa' 
but their nature and essential connexion are not 
determined ; for the expression, ovz'ot ol fpstV 'iv 
eicsh at the end of ver. 7, does not refer ad uni- 
tatem essentiae, and thus signify that they make 
together one divine being ; but a J unitatem vo- 
luntatis, and so means, as appears from the con- 
text, that they are agreed, unanimous, idem cun- 
firmant. This is the meaning at the end of ver. 
8, as all are compelled to admit, and it is the 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



135 



meaning of h dvao, whenever it occurs in the 
writings of John, as John, x. 30; xvii. 11, &e. 
Ci. on these verses: Sernler, Historische und 
kritische Sammlungen iiber die sogenannten 
Beweisstellen der Dogmatik, Erstes Stuck ; 
Halle, 1764, 8vo; also his Vertheidigung und 
Zusatze, 2n St. 1768. Michaelis, Einleit. ins 
N. T„, th. ii. ; and especially Griesbach, Dia- 
tribe in loc. 1 John, v. Appendix, N. T. Ed. ii. 

SECTION XXXVI. 

OF THOSE TEXTS IN WHICH THE FATHER, SON, 
AND HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATELY MENTIONED, 
AND IN WHICH THEIR NATURE AND MUTUAL 
RELATION ARE TAUGHT. 

These texts form the second class above men- 
tioned, s. 35; and they shew how the texts of 
the first class are to be understood. They prove 
(a) that the Son and Holy Spirit, according to 
the doctrine of the New Testament, are divine, 
or belong to the one divine nature; and (b) that 
the three subjects are personal and equal. In 
popular instruction it will be found best to ex- 
hibit this class of texts before the other. In 
examining these texts we shall exhibit (1) those 
which teach the divinity of the Father; (2) of 
the Son; (3) of the Holy Ghost. 

The Deity of the Father. 

When the term Father is applied to God it 
often designates the whole godhead, or the whole 
divine nature ; as Qibg 6 Ila-r^p, 1 Cor. viii. 
4—6 ; John, xvii. 1 — 3. He is often called 0j6j 
xal Ila-T^p — i. e., ©?6j 6 LTar'^p, or ©e6j 6j tati 
Ha?r t p, as Gal. i. 4, (a Hebraism, like the use 
of i for the relative "\t?x.) All the arguments, 
therefore, which prove the existence of God (vide 
s. 15 — 17), prove also the deity of the Father. 
In the scriptures God is called Father, 

1. Inasmuch as he is the creator and preserver. 
Deut. xxxii. 6, Is he not thy Father, who hath 
made thee and established thee? 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
3eoj o Uatrjp e| ov td rtdvta, Ephes. iv. 6, 6 
n.o,tr t p 7tdvto>v. The Hebrews call the author, 
inventor, teacher of anything, the father of it; 
as Gen. iv. 20 — 22, Jubal, the father of all who 
play on the harp, &c. ; Job, xxxviii. 28, God, the 
Father of rain. 

2. Inasmuch as he is the benefactor, guardian, 
and guide of men. Psalm lxviii. 5, The father 
of the fatherless. Job says of himself, (xxix. 16,) 
I was the father of the poor. Isaiah, lxiii. 16, 
"Thou (God) art our father and redeemer." 
Psalm ciii. 13, » As a father pitieth his children, 
so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." It was 
9. great object with Christ to diffuse just appre- 
hensions respecting the universal paternal love 
of God to men. Cf. Romans, viii. 15, 1 6, also 
s. 28, 30, 31. Hence he frequently calls God, 
Father, heavenly Father, &c. The name chil 



dren of God sometimes denotes his favourites, 
those beloved by him; sometimes those who en- 
deavour to resemble him, especially in purity, 
love, and beneficence; sometimes both those 
who love and follow him as children a father, 
and those whom he loves as a father does duti- 
ful children. In this respect, too, God is often 
called the Father of men — i. e., their example, 
pattern, the being whom they imitate. When 
the name Father is applied to God in either of 
these respects, as creator or as benefactor, the 
whole godhead is intended. 

3. God is frequently called in the New Tes- 
tament, o 0£oj xal IIaT , '/Jp toy Kvpiov 'I^aov Xpta- 
tov, Romans, xv. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Ephes. i. 3, 
&c. This expression in many texts indicates, 

(a) The relation in which Christ, as the Sa- 
viour of men, stands to God; in which relation 
he is frequently called the Son of God, s. 37. 
God is represented in the Bible as properly the 
author and institutor (Ila-r^p) of Christianity ; 
and also as the father of Christ, in that he sent 
him into the world, and commissioned him as a 
man to instruct and to redeem our race. It is 
clear from John that Christ himself often calls 
God his father, in reference to this charge and 
commission which God had given him. John, 
xvii. 1 — 3, Hdtsp, — hb^anbv gov tbv Tibv — tScoxa<; 
avtcp s'^ovGiav ridarjs Gapxbs iva jlv^gxugc Gt, tbv 
jxovov oJkr^avbv ®sbv, xal ov drLzG'tzi'kae,, 'Ir t Govv 
Xpiorroi'. This is quite accordant with that 
scriptural usage before specified, by which the 
author of a thing is called its father. And be- 
sides, teachers were called by the Jews fathers, 
and those taught by them, children. 2 Kings, 
ii. 12; vi. 21. Christ says to his disciples, 
Matt, xxiii. 9, Let none call you father (as 
teachers are called), for one is your Father, 
(teacher, instructor,) who is in heaven. 

(b) This phrase, the Father of Jesus Christ, in 
many passages, undoubtedly indicates a certain 
internal relation existing in the godhead of the 
deity of Christ to the deity of the Father, the 
peculiar nature of which relation is nowhere dis- 
closed in the Bible, and probably cannot be 
clearly understood by men. We know, how- 
ever, that while Christ always acknowledged 
that he derived everything from the Father, he 
made himself equal to him. Vide Morus, p. 
63, s. 8. In this sense, Christ uses the phrase 
in many passages, and among others, in his 
discourse, John, v. This even the Jews noticed, 
and accused him of blasphemy, because he 
called God Hatipa IStov, and so made himself 
e-qual to God, (ver. 18.) Nor does Christ blame 
them, in his answer, for understanding him ir 
this way; but, on the contrary, goes on to say, 
ver. 23, that all should honour the Son even as 
they honour the Father. Cf. John, x. 30, seq. ; 
Luke, ii. 49. Theologians therefore say : Pater 
dicitur duplidter ,* («) vrtoatarixCoc, pcrsonaliter 



!36 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



incommunicabiliter, (de prima persona ;) (b) 
©•ucrcuStoj, essentialiter ; sic tribus personis esse 
commune. Moms, p. 60, note ad. s. 4. 

SECTION XXXVII. 

OF THE TEXTS IN WHICH DIVINE NAMES ARE 
GIVEN TO CHRIST. 

The deity of Christ is proved from three 
classes of texts. Morus, p. 60, seq. s. 5 — 9. 
(«) Texts in which divine names are ascribed to 
him, s. 37. But from most of these texts, in 
themselves considered, we can derive no very 
strong argument for the supreme or essential 
deity of Christ. They rather prove his divine- 
ness than his deiiy. In order to prove the deity 
of Christ, we depend upon (b) texts in which 
divine attributes and works, and (c) divine honour 
or worship (cultus divinus) are ascribed to him. 
Both of these classes will be considered in s. 
38, coll. s. 100. From all these texts in con- 
junction the result is, that Christ is called God 
on account of his divine attributes and works. 
Morus, p. 63. 

Note 1. Works in defence of the deity of 
Christ. Among- the more ancient writers, Ca- 
lixtus, Whitby, Spener, Venema, defended this 
doctrine. Among the more modern, G. F. Seiler 
has written, and with reference to the present 
controversies, Ueber die Gottheit Christi ; Leip- 
zig, 1775, 8vo. Semler, Ueber die Beweisstellen 
u. s. w. 1772, 4to; particularly his historical 
notes. "Gottheit Christi, 1st sie wohl aus 
seinen eignen Reden zu erweisen?" (printed 
without name of the place, 1790, 8vo.) In the 
year 1786, the King of England gave, as the 
subject of a premiu m-essay, the proof of the divi- 
nity of Christ (in the sense of the Lutheran 
church), and appointed the theological faculty 
at Gottingen to award the prize, (a medal, worth 
50 ducats.) This gave occasion to the follow- 
ing work of Semler, Vorbereitung auf die 
Konigl. Grossbrit. Preisfrage von der Gottheit 
Christi ; Halle, 1787, 8vo. From twenty-seven 
essays that were offered, none were judged wor- 
thy of the prize. The faculty, however, pub- 
lished the following essay as the best: Jo. Frid. 
Flatt, Commentatio, in qua symbolica ecclesiae 
nostras dei deitate Christi sententia probatur et 
vindicatur; Gottingag, 1788, 8vo. The follow- 
ing able and intelligent letters, written under 
fictitious names, owed their origin to this prize: 
lo. Aspontani ad Rud. Plimmelium, de deitate 
Jesu Christi, epistolaa quatuor; Lips. 1789, 
8vo. Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen 
Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi, 
in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten; Rostock und 
Leipzig, 1800. 

Note 2. Morus, p. 65, s. 9, makes the follow- 
ing just observation* Christ has laid the human 



race under infinite obligations, by the special 
blessings relating to our salvation, which he 
has bestowed upon us. But these benefits de- 
rive an additional value from the exalted cha- 
racter of the person to whom we owe them. 
And the gratitude which we shall feel towards 
him, and our willingness to obey his precepts 
and to believe his doctrine, will therefore proba- 
bly be in proportion to the idea we form of his 
character. It is not then, as many would have 
us suppose, a matter of no consequence to un- 
dervalue the character of Christ, or degrade him 
to the level of a man. The truth of this obser- 
vation is abundantly confirmed both by scripture 
and experience ; and it should be seriously pon- 
dered by every teacher of religion. 

The following are the principal texts in which 
the names of deity are given to Christ; — 

1. John, i. 1, 2. Christ is here called 6 
%6yo$' Morus, p. 71, note. John is the only 
one of the New-Testament writers who applies 
this name to Christ. He wrote among the 
Grecian Jews, and for the Hellenistic Chris- 
tians, among whom probably this appellation 
of Christ must at that time have been very com- 
mon ; which is the reason why he does not more 
fully explain it. It signifies among the Jews 
and other ancient people, when applied to God, 
everything by which God reveals himself to men, 
and makes known to them his will. Hence those 
who made known the divine will to men were 
called by the Hellenists ^oyot, otherwise ayy£*A.ot., 
8ovXoi &sov' as, 0f 6j ^p^rat 7mjol$, Philo, Migrat. 
Abrah. Vide Book of Wisdom, xviii. 15, on 
which cf. Grotius. Now this word was proba- 
bly applied to the Messiah, by way of eminence, 
because he was considered as the greatest divine 
messenger; Rev. xix. 13. 

The Hellenists, however, frequently asso- 
ciated very erroneous ideas with this word ; and 
on this account John undertakes here to correct 
their mistakes respecting it, and gives it a very 
elevated meaning. He says: 6 Aoyoj {the de- 
clarer, revcaler of God) existed iv apzy — viz., ?ov 
xotiuov (n^xna, Gen. i. 1 — i. e., ab eeterno.) 
Did he exist before the creation of the world, he 
must be God; for before the creation nothing 
but God himself existed. This pre-existence 
of Christ is also taught in his discourses, John, 
viii. 58 ; xvii. 5, 24. And the Aoyo? was with 
God — viz., before he revealed himself to men. 
Kou 0?6j r[v 6 Aoyoj, propositio inversa, as in 
John, iv. 21. 'O Aoyoj is the subject; the Logos 
was God. Crell's conjectural reading, ©sou r t v 
6 Tioyoj, must be rejected at once, since all the 
MSS. agree in the common reading, which is 
undoubtedly correct. Vide s. 100. In thi? 
passage the principal proof does not lie in the 
word xoyoj, nor even in the word ^eoj, which in 
a larger sense is often applied to kings and 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



137 



earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the 
Aoyoj — viz., that he existed from eternity with 
God ; that the world was made by him, &c. This 
text belongs, therefore, to the following general 
•ass, as well as to this. 

2. John, xx. 28. Here Thomas, at last con- 
vinced that Christ was actually risen from the 
dead, thus addresses him : o Ruptoj /xov xai 6 0foj 
pov. The nominative instead of the vocative. 
El gv, or some similar phrase, must be supplied, 
in order to complete the sense : " Thou art truly 
he, my Lord and my God." It is not an ex- 
clamation of wonder, as some have understood 
it ; for it is preceded by the phrase elrtsv av-tci, 
he said this to him; addressed him in these 
words. In the same manner the Romans, after 
the time of Tiberius, used the expression Domi- 
nus ac Deus noster, in relation to the emperors, 
whom they deified. Thomas probably remem- 
bered what Jesus had often said respecting his 
superhuman origin, John, v. 8, 10, 17, seq. ; and 
he now saw it all confirmed by his resurrection 
from the dead. Christ seems to have approved 
of the manner in which he was addressed by 
Thomas. 

3. Philip, ii. 6, where it is said of Christ that 
lie is toa 0£Q, Deo sequalis ; not ofioio j ©sw, av- 
t'^soj, SsosixsXos, similis Deo — terms applied by 
Homer to kings and heroes. The term tcoj 
©so, or the contrary, is never applied to a finite 
or created being. Hence the Jews, John, v. 
18, considered it as blasphemy in Christ to make 
himself tW ©£9 Vide s. 38. 

4. Rom. ix. 5. Paul is speaking of the privi- 
leges of the Jewish nation, and mentions among 
others the circumstance, that Christ was derived 
from them, as to his bodily nature, £$ *Lv 6 Xptcr- 
tfoj -to xa'ta adpxa' and then adds, 6 u>v irtl rtdv- 
tcov ©£Of, jii^oy^T'oj £tj tovs atwvaj ! If this re- 
fers to Christ, it is a very strong proof of his 
divinity. For the phrase ©soj tvhoyyj-tos is ap- 
plied only to the supreme God, Romans, i. 25 ; 
Mark, xiv. Gl. Besides 6 w is used for 6$ ton, 
which usually relates to the immediate antece- 
dent. 

But the passage is sometimes differently 
pointed, a full stop being placed after adpxa, 
and then this whole proposition is referred to 
the Father. So Origen, Eusebius, and many 
of the ecclesiastical fathers; vide Wetstein and 
Semler. But (a) it must then read, according 
to the usus loquendi of the Greeks : liti rtdvtav, 
without cov or o ®f6j, 6 trtl 7tdvtu>v (tov) ; though 
in answer to this, it might indeed be said that 
Paul was little versed in the Grecian idiom, 
and has many ungrammatical constructions. 
But an ungrammatical construction of such a na- 
ture is found nowhere else, either in Paul, or 
the other writers of the New Testament. (b) 
In all the passages, without exception, in which 
18 



these words are used as a doxology, tvioyrjtos 
fana) stands first in the clause; accordingly, if 
it referred to the Father, it would read sv7.oy^t6i 
6 ©?6j 6 tril Ttdvtcov. This usage is as fixed and 
invariable in Greek, as in German to say Gott- 
lub ! instead of Lobgott! (c) Since Paul has 
elsewhere ascribed divine perfection to Christ 
in the distinctest manner, as will be proved s. 
38, there is no reason why the natural meaning 
of his language in this passage should be per- 
verted. And if this passage were read in an 
unprejudiced manner, it would undoubtedly be 
referred by every one to Christ. 

5. John, x. 28 — 30, iyCj xau 6 Ila-z^p Iv £6y.iv. 
These words are not to be understood to denote 
so much an equality of nature, as unanimity of 
feeling and purpose; s. 35, note, ad finem. Still 
the passage is quite remarkable ; because Christ 
professes to do his work in common with his 
Father; and this is more than any man, pro- 
phet, or even angel, is ever said in the Bible to 
do. These perform their works through God, 
and by his assistance. Indeed, they do nothing 
themselves, and God does everything. That 
being one with God, therefore, which Jesus here 
asserts for himself, is something peculiar, and 
which belongs to him only as he is a being of a 
higher nature. Cf. John, v. 18, seq. 

6. Some of the texts in which Christ is called 
the Son of God. It is evident that this name is 
given in the New Testament to Christ in more 
than one relation, and consequently is used in 
more than one signification ; vide s. 36, ad 
finem. Morus, p. 63, note 2. Three different 
senses of this name may be distinguished. 

(a) In many passages it is synonymous with 
^pwT'oj, Messiah, or king. In the oriental lan- 
guages, kings are commonly called the sons 
of God, by way of eminence, (so in Greek 
Stoysvftj and Siotpsty sis ;) and the most distin- 
guished among them his first-born, Ps. Ixxxix. 
27. They were considered as the vicegerents 
of God upon earth, — as his representatives, 
bearing his image, and entrusted with his autho- 
rity, Ps. Ixxii. 2. The idea of a king, there- 
fore, is frequently implied in the appellation 
Sod of God, applied to Christ; which then is 
synonymous with rvirD, Xpwr'of, Xpfj^oj ©jov. 
This title was very commonly given to the Mes- 
siah by the Jews; vide Matt. xvi. 16; Luke, 
ix. 20; Matt, xxvii. 40; Luke, xxiii. 35; also 
the Talmud and Rabbins. It was undoubtedly 
taken originally from Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Sam. vii. 
14, both of which texts were referred by the 
Jews to the Messiah. If this title is understood 
in this way, it is easy to see how Paul can say, 
1 Cor. xv. 28, that hereafter, when the church 
on earth shall cease, the S071 of God will lay 
down his fiatsi'kilav, and as Ttoj become subject 
to the Father. In this same sense— namely, to 
m 2 



138 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



denote h/s Messiahship — Jesus also sometimes 
appropriates this name to himself. He says, 
Mark, xiii. 32, Chat he himself, as Tib$, knew not 
the time of ths judgment of Jerusalem. To con- 
tend, therefore, that this appellation always de- 
notes the divine nature of Christ, would involve 
us in unnecessary difficulty. But the meaning 
which we have now given will by no means 
apply in all the cases in which this appellation 
occurs. It sometimes denotes, 

(b) The higher nature of Christ — e. g., Rom. 
i. 3, 4. Christ is here spoken of in two re- 
spects : first, zttfa tfapxa, in his inferior nature, 
his humanity, and in this he is called Ttoj 
Aavl8 : secondly, xata Ttvsvjxa cvyicdGvvrjs, as to 
his higher, more perfect nature, to $tiov, and in 
this he is called Tibs ®eov, and solemnly de- 
clared to be such by God in his resurrection 
from the dead. Jesus, moreover, uses this title 
of himself in this sense, John, v. 17, seq. ; and 
the Jews well understood that by thus using it 
he made himself equal to God ; cf. x. 30, 33. 
Nor did Christ charge them with misunder- 
standing him, but, on the contrary, admitted the 
sense they had put upon his words ; cf. ver. 18, 
23 ; and x. 34. Again, the predicates connected 
with this appellation, John, i. and Heb. i. ii., 
are such as are never used in respect to any 
man, or any created spirit. Thus Christ is 
called [Aovoysvyis. Moreover, Xpc-tftos is often 
distinguished from Tlb$ ®eov. Thus, Matt. xvi. 
16, where Peter answers a question of Jesus, 
by saying, thou art the Christ, the Son of God: 
cf. John, xx. 31. 

(c) He is also called Son of God, Luke, i. 35, 
to designate the immediate power of God in the 
miraculous production of his human nature. In 
the same sense, Adam, who was immediately 
created by God, is called the Son of God, Luke, 
iii. 38. 

7. Tit. ii. 13, We expect the glorious appear- 
ance, the ejtitydvtziav tfijj So£j^ tov fisyd%ov 
®£Ov xal scotyjpos tjixlLv 'IqGov Xpiuf o^. Here 
it is objected, that if ®eb$ [A£ya$ related to Christ, 
the xal would be omitted. But since tov is 
omitted before Gcot^pot;, both peydhov ®£ov and 
flfw-r'^po? must be construed as in apposition with 
'Iqaov XpKjtfoi), according to a known usage of 
the Greek language; and so they are construed 
by many of the ancient writers. Besides, liti- 
(Jxxvemx is the word by which the solemn coming 
of Christ is appropriately designated. The pas- 
sage therefore, is regarded, even by Henke, as 
referring to Christ. 

These are the most important texts of this 
class. Other texts are sometimes placed in con- 
nexion with these, which are less capable of de- 
fence, either on critical or philological grounds. 
Such are 1 John, v. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts, 
xx. 28. 



SECTION XXXVIII. 

OF THE TEXTS IN WHICH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES 
AND WORKS ARE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST ; AND IN 
WHICH DIVINE HONOUR IS REQUIRED FOR HIM. 

I. Texts in which Divine Attributes and Works are 
ascribed to Christ. 

This is the second class of the division men- 
tioned in the first part of s. 37. Many doubtful 
texts are often placed in this class, in order to 
make out the proof, that all the divine attributes 
are ascribed to Christ in the Bible. But the 
proof of this is not at all important. For if it 
be allowed that one single divine attribute is 
ascribed to Christ in the Bible, the conclusion is 
inevitable, that he must possess all the rest. 
The divine attributes cannot be separated or 
disjoined ; where one of them exists, all of 
them must be found. And the truth of this 
cannot be disputed. Vide s. 18. The follow- 
ing divine attributes and works are distinctly 
ascribed to Christ in the scriptures — viz., 

1. Eternity. Cf. Morus, p. 60, 61, s. 6. 
This attribute is ascribed to him in those texts 
in which he is said to have existed before the 
foundation of the world; for this is the way in 
which eternity a parte ante is always described. 
Vide s. 20. Here belongs the text, John, i. 1 
(s. 37) ; and also John, xvii. 5, Glorify me 
with that glory which I had with thee rtpb fov 
-tbv xoguov thai. The glory here spoken of 
could not be that derived from the government 
of the kingdom of God, or of the church ; be- 
cause neither of them existed before the crea- 
tion of the world ; it can therefore be nothing 
else than divine glory. Here, two, belongs the 
passage, John, viii. 58, where Christ describes 
his higher nature, by saying, Before Abraham 
was, I am (slul) ; for by this same verb, in the 
present tense, does God describe his own un- 
changeable being. Accordingly the Jews un- 
derstood him to assert for himself a divine attri- 
bute, and therefore charged him with blasphemy, 
and sought to stone him, (ver. 50.) And so fre- 
quently, according to the testimony of John and 
the other evangelists, Christ spoke of himself, 
in a manner in which it would have been pre- 
sumption and blasphemy for a prophet or any 
created being to speak. 

2. The creation and preservation cf the world. 
This is ascribed to him, John, i. 1 — 3, lidvta 
hi avtov lykysto, xal £wpt$ avtov iyivsto ovSs evj, 
b yiyovsv. Ver. 10, O x6auo$ 8t avtov iysvsto* 
Col. i. 15 — 17, Hputotoxo^ rtcLGris xtiG£<£$, not, 
primus inter res creatas, which would be incon- 
sistent with the context, ver, 16, where the rea- 
son is given why he was rtpu-e o-toxof but, rex, 
the ruler or governor (^piotf? vwv iv rtaoiv, princi- 
patum tenens, Col. i. 18) ; in which sense 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



139 



Christ is also called rtpor otoxos in Heb. i. 6, and 
upxy (i«' e «5 o.pz^ v ) *ys xfMsas ®zov, Rev. iii. 14. 
By him were all things in the universe created, 
(iv avta extLdeT/j ia Tiavta ta iv tois ovpavoos xal 
Iril trfi y^jj) the material and spiritual world, 
(fa opatfd xal aopatfa ,•) everything which is ele- 
vated, great, and powerful, (^aovoi xupidt'^'r'f 5, 
dp^at, x. f. %. ,•) a// things were created by him 
(8i axi-roii) and on his account, or for his service 
(sl$ avtov). He exists from eternity (jtpb ndv- 
fuv), and from him everything derives its exist- 
ence (td rtdvta iv avtq Gwaaif^xs). Philo and 
Josephus often speak of God, the Creator, in 
the same way. Heb. i. 2, 3. Christ is here 
described as <j>£ pu>v, (i. e., conservans ; cf. Htn, Is. 
xlvi. 3 ; and the phrase Sjd dS-j? applied to God) 
t a rtdvta tc> pyyiati trfi Bwdfisus avtov' i. e., by 
his almighty will or command. That in the 
clause, oV ov xal tov$ aLZivas irioiyj6£v, the word 
hid may denote not merely the instrumental, but 
also the efficient cause, is evident from many 
texts — e. g., John, iii. 17 ; Romans, i. 5 ; 1 Cor. 
i. 9 ; and especially from Heb. ii. 10, where 
the same word is used in reference to the Fa- 
ther, hi ov ta rtdvta. And that the meaning of 
Paul was, that the Son himself was the creator 
of the universe, is placed beyond a doubt from 
the text, Heb. i. 10, where Ps. cii. 26 (Thou, 
Lord, hast founded the earth ; the heavens are the 
wbrk of thy hands,) is quoted and applied to 
Christ. Therefore inasmuch as the eternal 
power and majesty of the Father are declared 
by the creation, so far as it is his work (Rom. 
i. 20) ; the eternal power and majesty of the 
Son are declared by this same creation, so far 
as it is his work. For further remarks respect- 
ing the creation of the world by the Son, vide 
s. 47. 

3. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ, Phil. iii. 
21 ; omniscience, Matt. xi. 27. John, vi. 46, 
He only, awpewes tbv rtatipa. John, ii. 24, 25. 
He is also described as the searcher of hearts, 
who knows and will bring to light the most hid- 
den things, 1 Cor. iv. 5. Indeed, it follows of 
course, that if Christ has created, governs, and 
preserves all things, he must possess omnipo- 
tence and omniscience. Here it is objected, 
that from other texts it is clear that Christ re- 
ceived both his doctrine and his power from the 
Father— e. g., Matt. xi. 27, rtdvta poi, rtapsho^rj 
vrtb tov rtatpb$. John, viii. 26 ; xii. 49 ; Matt, 
xxviii. 18, all power in heaven and in earth is 
given me. John, iii. 35 ; v. 26 ; the Father hath 
given power to the Son to raise the dead, &c. 
But in these passages Christ is spoken of as 
Messiah, or as an ambassador appointed by 
God. And here it is evident, that he is consi- 
dered in the New Testament both as God, and 
as God united with man. Vide s. 100, seq. 

Note. — The passage Col. ii. 9, iv avta xaroixsl 
riav to rfkripco/xa tyjs $£otnto$ ou>fiatixu<;, is quoted 



to prove that Christ possesses all divine perfec- 
tions. But the text must be explained by the 
parallel texts, Col. i. 19, iv avtq evboxrjo's rtdv 
to rtX^pw^a xatoixrfiai, and Ephes. iii. 19, where 
the phrase rt^pcoua ®£ov occurs instead of 
Ti%r j p<^/xa ^sbtqtos, so that ^sot^j is abstract for 
concrete, like xvpiotrji instead of Kvptog. 11^- 
pu>ua means multitude, collection ,- as rfkr^va 
tZ>v l^vcdv, Rom. xi. 25. By the phrase, then, 
riav to Tt'kripidfA.a trjs ^tsotrjto^, the whole multi- 
tude of men living under the divine government 
are intended, and when of these it is said, that 
they iv avta (Xpiatcp) xatoixd, it is the same as 
to say, All men without distinction, whether 
Jews or Greeks, have citizenship in the Chris- 
tian church, — all are the people of God. Sco^a- 
tixZ>$ is equivalent to w$ ciufia, and must be ex- 
plained by the parallel texts, Col. i. 18; Ephes. 
i. 22 ; iv. 15; according to which the meaning 
of the phrase is, they compose the body, or church, 
of which Christ is the head (x£^a%vj.) Noesselt, 
in his Weihnachts programm. of 1785, gives 
another explanation. He supposes the allu- 
sion is to the perfect divine instruction which 
is given by Christ, and that in a real and dis- 
tinct manner (crco^a-r'ixws) ; and not in symbols 
and images, as in the Mosaic religion. 

II. Texts in which Divine Honour is required for 
Christ. 

This is the third class of texts in proof of the 
divinity of Christ. Christ and his apostles ex 
pressly teach that divine honour and worship 
must be paid to God only. Vide Matt. iv. 10, 
coll. Deut. vi. 13; Rev. xix. 10. And in this 
they agree entirely with the prophets of the Old 
Testament. Vide Isa. xlii. 8 ; xlviii. 11. Hence 
it is just to conclude, that when Christ himself 
and his apostles require that divine worship 
should be paid to him, they acknowledge that 
he is God ; otherwise they would require what, 
according to their own principles, would be 
blasphemy. The following are the principal 
texts of this class : — 

1 . John, v. 23, All should honour the Son, even 
as they honour the Father ; whoso honours not the 
Son, honours not the Father who hath sent him. 
We reason thus: — If the worship due to the 
Father should be paid to the Son, and if he who 
withholds from the Son such worship as is due 
to the Father, is regarded as if he honoured not 
the Father, it follows that equal honour is due 
to the Son with the Father. But Christ, ac- 
cording to his own maxims, could have laid no 
claim to this honour if he were less than the 
Father, or, which is the same thing, were not 
God. Now the Son is honoured as the Father, 
his instructions and precepts are embraced and 
obeyed as those of the Father ; when the same 
unlimited confidence is placed in him as is 
placed in the Father; when all our salvation is 



HO 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



expected from him as it is from the Father : and 
this is what Jesus requires of his disciples. 

2. That the apostles and primitive Christians 
must have understood and explained these and 
eimilar expressions of Christ in this manner, 
appears from their example. For (a) the apos- 
tles and first Christians directed their prayers 
to Christ — e. g., in the choice of an apostle, 
Acts, i. 24 : Xv, Kvptf, xapStoyvuxsta 7idvtu>v, 
coll. v. 21, where Jesus is called Kvptoj. The 
o Kvpio$, whom Paul invoked, 2 Cor. xii. 8, was 
Christ; for it was that the power of Christ 
{8vva[xi$ iLpititov) might be manifested in sup- 
porting him that he was willing to suffer; cf. 
Acts, vii. 59. Besides, in the early ages of 
Christianity, it was well known even among 
the heathen, that Christians worshipped Christ 
as a God. Pliny (X. Epist. 97) says, he was 
assured that in their meetings, carmen Christo 
quasi Deo soliti essent dicere secum invicem. (6) 
The apostles frequently refer to Christ the texts 
of the Old Testament which speak of the honour 
and worship of God — e. g., Heb. i. 6, Let all 
the angels of God worship him, from Psalm 
xcvii. 7; also Rom. xiv. 11, from Is. xlv. 3. 

3. Phil. ii. 10, M the name of Jesus (i. e., 
when they hear the name of Jesas, 6 Kvpios, the 
Lord over all, ver. 9, 11,) every knee should bow, 
of angels, (or the inhabitants of heaven,) of the 
inhabitants of earth, and the inhabitants of the 
kingdom of the dead, (xarta%$6via',) in short, all 
in the universe, without exception. Should it 
be objected here that these words do not require 
that divine honour should be given to Jesus, but 
that adoration only which is due to him as king, 
Messiah, head of the church, (since in ver. 9, 11, 
he is spoken of in the latter character, and not 
as God,) it might be replied, that in the pre- 
ceding context he is expressly described as ha 
©£<£. So that Paul here requires that same di- 
vine honour to be paid to Christ which he re- 
quires elsewhere, and which he himself ren- 
dered : All should worship as God this equal of 
God (ver. 6), whenever they heard his name, 
which is above every other. 

4. Here belong also the texts in which the 
apostles shew that they place their whole reli- 
ance on Christ; looked to him for all temporal 
and spiritual blessings, those relating to time 
and to eternity ; and in which they exhort all 
Christians to do the same ; and this reliance on 
Christ is expressed by them in the same lan- 
guage in which they speak elsewhere of their 
confidence in God and his providence, and 
which is never employed in reference to men or 
angels; 2 Cor. v. 8—11; 2 Tim. iv. 17, 18. 
The texts in which the apostles profess to work 
miracles iv ovo t uaifi "Xpicrtov, as his messengers, 
and by his power, are to be reckoned among the 
foregoing proofs — e. g., Acts, iii. 6, seq. &c; 



also the oaths and protestations which the apos- 
tles uttered by Christ, since, according to Chris- 
tian rules, they could swear by God alone — 
e. g., Rom. ix. 1, iv Xpttf-z^, by Christ! 2 Tim. 
ii. 7 ; finally, the texts in which the apostles 
supplicate grace from Christ, as well as from 
the Father, for all Christians. 

We see, then, from all these texts, that while 
the Bible always teaches that Christ receives 
all his endowments from the Father, (vide Mo- 
ms, p. 63, s. 8,) and that the Father acts 
through him ; and bestows all good through 
him; it still describes him as literally God, and 
equal with the Father. And this is sufficient 
to establish our faith ; and further than this we 
should not attempt to go. 

SECTION XXXIX. 

OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND HIS PERSONALITY. 

I. Meaning of the term Holy Spirit. 

One of the principal difficulties in the discus- 
sion of this doctrine arises from the various 
meanings of the words nn and rtvsvfia, and of 
the compounds vfnp nn, dviSn nn, isi, Uvsvy-a, 
dytov, Uvsvfxa ®.sov, x. -t. %. These meanings, 
however, are needlessly multiplied by the sub- 
tleties of interpreters and lexicographers. It 
may also be remarked that the terms tfvip nn 
and D\iSs; nn, Hvsv/xa dyiov and LTi-j^ua ®tov, are 
interchanged as synonymous, since dyvov, dlnp f 
signify what is reverenced, venerable, and then 
more specifically what is divine. Hence the 
expression occurring 1 Pet. iv. 14, ^6 tijs hol^c, 
(i. e., evBo^ov or dyoov) xa,U (i. e.) to t?ov Qsov 

TtVtVliLU. 

In order to understand thoroughly the ground 
of the various significations of this term as used 
in the Bible, and especially in the New Testa- 
ment, the reader must consult the general re- 
marks respecting the use of these words, and 
respecting the derivations of their significations 
contained in s. 19, II.; col. s. 9, III. IV. In 
continuation of what is there said, (supposing 
it now to be understood by the student,) the fol- 
lowing remarks, relating particularly to the New 
Testament, are here added. 

tf"hp nn frequently signifies, the divine nature, 
or God himself; but it also denotes the divine 
power, as displayed both in the material and 
spiritual world ; also the divine understanding 
and knowledge, and the communication of it to 
men. But in speaking of the effects of the di- 
vine power, there was not in ancient times that 
nice distinction which is now made between 
what is mediately and immediately done by God, 
since his agency is not less real in one case than 
in the other. This distinction is not therefore 
found in the holy scriptures ; no practical pur- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



141 



pose could have been answered by introducing 
it; and indeed, to have made it would often have 
been injurious. 

Accordingly, throughout the Old Testament, 
the srnp nn, or OTiSs; nm, is represented as 
having an agency, sometimes mediate, some- 
times immediate, in everything which is done; 
and to it everything great and elevated — know- 
ledge, talents, discoveries, arts, great actions, 
good governments, exemplary virtue and piety, 
&c, are uniformly ascribed. Vide s. 9, III. 

The same mode of expression and representa- 
tion is adopted in the New Testament, and was 
common among the first Christians. As the 
people of God, they were bound to distinguish 
themselves from other men by their knowledge 
of the sacred truths of religion ; they were 
bound to live in a virtuous and truly pious man- 
ner; to place their confidence in God and in 
Jesus Christ; with the promise that thus they 
should enjoy in an eminent degree the blessing 
of God and the grace of Christ, and be greatly 
prospered in their endeavours for the promotion 
of Christianity. Now all this knowledge, holi- 
ness, faith, and success in their undertakings 
was ascribed by them Hvsvfiartt, 0.719 or esov. 
Vide 1 Cor. xii. 3, seq. ; from which passage 
we also learn that the influences and operations 
of this divine Spirit were different, according to 
the difference found in individual Christians. 

( L 7) It was the duty of all Christians to possess 
a fundamental knowledge, and a firm and un- 
wavering belief of the principal truths of Chris- 
tianity ; to live in a manner corresponding to 
this knowledge; to have a faith in God and in 
Jesus Christ, made active by love. And so this 
knowledge of the truths of religion, and this 
correspondent Christian temper and disposition, 
were ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and were called 
Hvsvfia as/iov, Ilvsvva Qsov, 'Kptstov, or Tlov. 
Vide Rom. viii. 9; Gal. v. 16, 22, 23; vi. 8. 
The gospel itself, or Christianity, was also called 
by the same name, it being the most perfect, and 
a divinely instituted religion. 

(6) But some Christians w T ere distinguished 
from the rest by eminent abilities, talents, gifts, 
and capacities; by zeal, activity, &c. These 
were made teachers and other officers of the 
church, according to their various gifts and abi- 
lities. Now all these various gifts, abilities, 
and talents, of whatever sort, by which such 
persons became useful to the church, were 
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, derived and named 
from him ; for in these various endowments the 
agency of this divine co-operating power was 
unusually conspicuous. These extraordinary 
qualifications are commonly called miraculous 
gifts — the gift of teaching, of tongues, of healing, 
of working miracles, &c, — all of which pro- 
moted the glory and ad vancement of Christianity. 
Vide Matt. iii. 11/ x Cor. xiv. 12; 1 Thess. v. 



19. On this account it is that all who oppose 
the truth of God, or persecute the prophets who 
teach it, even those who put hindrances in the 
way of the influence of religion over themsplves 
or others, are said to resist the Holy Spirit, to 
afflict, to grieve it, &c. Isa. lxiii. 10; Ephes. 
iv. 30; Acts, vii. 51. 

Since now the sacred writers, like all others, 
make use of the figure prosopopeia, and personify 
these divine influences — speaking of them as 
the Holy Spirit, as they often do of the wisdom 
and other attributes of God — we should be cau- 
tious in the selection of texts from which the 
personality of the Holy Spirit is to be proved. 
We should rest content with those which are 
most clear and explicit ; for nothing is gained by 
collecting a large number. 

Cf. Lang, Zur Beforderung des richtigen Ge- 
brauchs des Teller'schen Worterbuchs liber das 
N. T. unter dem Worte Geist. Schleusner. Diss, 
de vocabuli tlvbvuq, in libris N. T. vario usu, 
Gottingae, 1791, 4to. Scripta Varii Argumenti, 
No. IV., De Spiritu Sancto et Christo paracletis ; 
Halce, 1790. 

II. Personality of the Holy Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit is represented in the New 
Testament, not only as different from the Father 
and Son, and not merely as the personification 
of some attribute of God, or of some effect which 
he has produced, but as a literal person. Vide 
Semler, Disp. Spiritum Sanctum recte describi 
personam. The proof of this is thus made out 
from the following texts : — 

1. From the texts, John, xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv. 
26. The Holy Spirit is here called 7iapdx%r ( ?o$, 
not comforter, advocate, nor even merely teacher, 
as Ernesti renders it, but helper, assistant, coun- 
sellor, in which sense it is used by Philo, when 
he says, God needs no rfapaxV/yros, (monitor.) 
Of the Paracletus Christ says, that the Father 
will send him in his (Christ's) name, (i. e., in 
his place,) to instruct his disciples. To these 
three subjects similar personal predicates are 
here equally applied ; and the Paracletus is not 
designated by the abstract word auxilium, but 
by the concrete auxiliator ,• so that we have the 
Father, who sent him ; the Son, in whose place 
he comes ; and the Holy Spirit, who is sent. 
His office is to carry forward the great work of 
teaching and saving men, which Christ com- 
menced, and to be to the disciples of Christ what 
Christ himself was while he continued upon 
the earth. John, xv. 26, When the Paracletus 
shall come, whom I will send to you from the Fa- 
ther, {Imean, the Spirit — i. e., teacher — of truth, 
who proceeds from the Father), he will instruct 
you further in my religion ; where it should be 
remarked, that the phrase lasrtopcwff^at rtapa 
Ilarpdj means to be sent or commissioned by the 
Father. Cf. John, xiv. 16, (<5o>0a i(t*v riarz-p,) 



142 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, 



and xvi. 28, (sfj^ov rfapa ilatfpoj, missus sum,) 
and N'i> in Hebrew. This procession of the 
Holy Spirit from the Father does not imply, 
then, as it is used in the Bible, the" communi- 
cation of the divine nature to the Spirit, or his 
internal connexion with the Father. Vide 
s.43. 

2. 1 Cor. xii. 4 — 11, There are various gifts 
(%aplouata) , but there is one and the same Spirit 
(fo avTfd Hv?vua),from whom they all proceed. 
Here the %apiaua^a are expressly distinguished 
from the Spirit, who is the author of them. In 
ver. 5, this same person is distinguished from 
Christ (o Kvptos), and in ver. 6, from d ®s6$. In 
ver. 11 it is said, all these (various gifts) work- 
eth one and the selfsame Spirit, who imparteth to 
every man his own, as he will (jcc&wj ^ov^E-rUt). 

3. Those texts in which such attributes and 
works are ascribed to the Holy Spirit as can be 
predicated of no other than a personal subject. 
In John, xvi. 13, seq., he is said "katetv, axnvtw, 
"KapSdveiv, x. t. %. 1 Cor. ii. 10, God hath re- 
vealed the doctrines of Christianity to us by his 
spirit, (the 7iapdx%7]to? before mentioned, who 
was sent to give us this more perfect instruction.) 
And, this Spirit searches (^eptvva) all things, even 
the most secret divine purposes, (j5d^yj Qsov, cf. 
Rom. xi. 33. seq. ;) in his instruction, therefore, 
we may safely confide. The expressions, the 
Holy Spirit speaks, sends any one, appoints any 
one for a particular purpose, and others, which 
occur so frequently in the Acts and elsewhere, 
shew that the Holy Spirit was understood by the 
early Christians to be a personal agent. Acts, 
xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28; xxi. 11, seq. 

4. The formula of baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19, 
and other similar texts, such as 2 Cor. xiii. 14, 
where Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are men- 
tioned in distinction, (s. 35,) may now be used 
in proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, 
since the other texts upon which the meaning 
of these depends have already been cited. We 
may now safely conclude that the Holy Spirit 
mentioned in these texts was understood by the 
early Christians to be a person; although this 
could not be proved from this class of texts se- 
parately considered. Vide s. 35, I. 

From all these texts taken together, we may 
form the following result : — The Holy Spirit is 
represented in the Bible as a personal subject, 
and as such is distinguished from the Father 
and the Son. In relation to the human race he 
is described as sent and commissioned by the 
Father and the Son, and as occupying the place 
which Christ, who preceded him, held. In this 
respect he depends (to speak after the manner 
of men) upon the Father (John, xiv. 16) and 
upon the Son, (John, xiv. lf>, 26, also xvi. 14, 
ix ifov ifiov Xrj^Tfai ;) and in this sense he pro- 
ceeds from them both, or is sent by them both. 
This may be expressed more literally as fol- 



lows: — The great work of converting, sanctify- 
ing, and saving men, which the Father com- 
menced through the Son, will be carried on by 
the Father and Son, through the Holy Spirit. 

Note. — The objectors to this doctrine fre- 
quently say, that the imaginative orientalists 
were accustomed to represent many things as 
personal subjects, and to introduce them as 
speaking and acting, which, however, they 
themselves did not consider as persons, and did 
not intend to have so considered by others. 
And to this oriental usage they think that Christ 
and his apostles might here, as in other cases, 
have conformed. But whenever Christ and his 
apostles spoke in figurative language, they al- 
ways shewed, by the explanations which they 
gave, that they did not intend to be understood 
literally. But they have given no such expla- 
nation of the language which they employ with 
regard to the Holy Spirit. We therefore fairly 
conclude that they intended that their language 
should be understood literally ; otherwise they 
would have led their readers and hearers into 
error ; and the more so, as they well knew that 
their readers and hearers were accustomed to 
personifications. 

SECTION XL. 

OF THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

We shall now offer the texts from which the 
proof is drawn that the Holy Spirit is God ; or 
that the personal subject, called Uvsvy.a dyiov, 
possesses the same divine perfections which are 
ascribed to the Father and the Son. Morus, p. 
65, 66, s. 10. These texts may be divided into 
those which are more important, and those which 
are less convincing, or which, though frequently 
cited, have no relation to this subject. 

I. Texts in which Divine Attributes, d,-c, are 
ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 

On this subject we reason as follows : — If the 
texts in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished 
from the Father and the Son, and in which he 
is spoken of as a personal subject, also ascribe 
to him, as well as to them, divine attributes and 
perfections, it is just to conclude that he is God 
in the same sense in which the Father and the 
Son are so. On account of the various mean- 
ings of the word nvevua, we may Hot be able, 
nor can it be at all necessary, to offer a great 
multitude of texts in proof of the divinity of the 
Holy Spirit. If one divine attribute is in any 
passage clearly ascribed to him, his divinity is 
as firmly established as if it were proved from a 
great variety of texts that all the divine perfec- 
tions belong to him ; for the divine perfections 
are inseparably connected, and the possession 
of one of them involves the possession of all 
the rest. Vide s. 18, 38. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



143 



1 Cor. ii. 9 — 13, Hvsv/xa ipsvva tfa fid^y &eov, 
where omniscience is evidently ascribed to the 
Spirit. Vide s. 39 ; John, xvi. 13 ; where he is 
said to know future events, (futura contingen- 
tia,) which are concealed from every created 
beincr, and known to God only, (iv yowast ^uf 
xstVat, Horn.,) except so far as he reveals this 
knowledge to men. The Holy Spirit, then, to 
whom they are known, and who himself reveals 
them to others, must be God. 1 Cor. xii. 4, 11. 
Omnipotence and omniscience necessarily belong 
to an agent, who, according to his own good 
pleasure, imparts such various gifts, and does 
all which is here ascribed to the spirit of God. 
The revealing of divine truth to the minds of 
prophets and apostles ; their inspiration ; the mi- 
racles wrought through their instrumentality, and 
other things often spoken of as the peculiar work 
of God, are elsewhere ascribed to the Holy Spirit 
as the efficient agent, and considered as his 
proper work; from which it justly follows, that 
the Holy Spirit was regarded as God. Cf. 
John, xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xii. ; 1 Pet. i. 21, seq. The 
improvement of the moral character is described 
as the work of the Holy Spirit, John, iii. 5, seq., 
and often elsewhere as the work of God, on ac- 
count of the difficulties and obstacles with which 
it is attended, and which are so great as to prove 
wholly insurmountable by the unassisted efforts 
of man. 

The proof that divine worship was paid to the 
Holy Spirit is not so abundant and satisfactory 
as that adduced to prove that divine worship 
was rendered to Christ, s. 38. Still, however, 
it is sufficient, when taken in connexion with 
what has already been offered in proof of his 
divinity. In Rom. ix. 1, Paul swears by the 
Holy Spirit, ev Hvtvfiati dyto, as he does by 
Christ in the same passage. This must be con- 
sidered an act of divine worship, since both 
Mosaic and Christian rules forbid swearing by 
any but the supreme God, Matt. v. 33 — 36. 
To swear by God, and to honour or worship him, 
were synonymous terms in the Old Testament. 
In Matt. xii. 31, to speak against the Holy Spirit 
is represented by Christ as blasphemy. 

We are not destitute, then, of passages which 
distinctly ascribe divine attributes and works to 
the Holy Spirit, although these texts are not so 
many nor so clear as those which relate to the 
divinity of the Son. Some have taken occasion 
from this fact to represent the doctrine of the 
divinity of the Holy Spirit as doubtful or unim- 
portant; but — 

(a) In this connexion we would repeat the 
observation before made, s. 12 — viz., that we 
can conclude nothing respecting the internal 
importance of a doctrine from the more or less 
frequent mention of it in the New Testament. 
The books of the New Testament were written 
wi*h primary reference to the ondition of men 



at the time when they were written, and always 
presuppose a more full oral instruction. 

(b) The most important consideration, how- 
ever, is this: that by the Jlvsvfia aytov, 
something divine (jti &lov) was always under- 
stood by the Jews and Christians of ancient 
times. So soon, therefore, as the early Chris- 
tians understood that the Ilvsvfxa ayiov was a 
person, they immediately regarded him as God — 
a subject belonging to the godhead. It was not 
necessary, therefore,in the first Christian instruc- 
tion, to speak often and expressly of his divine 
nature and attributes. These were very easily 
understood from the ideas commonly entertained 
in ancient times respecting the divine Spirit. 
Vide Morus, p. 66, Note 5. The case was dif- 
ferent with respect to Christ, since the Jews 
did not commonly suppose that the Messiah was 
divine, as appears from Matt. xxii. 43 — 46. 
They understood his title, Son of God, in the 
general sense of a great king, s. 37. 

II. Texts in which the Holy Spirit is called 
God, Sf C . 

These are sometimes used to prove the divi- 
nity of the Holy Spirit, but are either inferior to 
the former in evidence, or have no bearing upon 
the subject. The observations just made, No. 
I. (a) of this section, have not always been duly 
regarded. Writers have thought too much of 
the number of texts, and have collected indiscri- 
minately many which have only an apparent 
relation to the subject. Especially they have 
endeavoured to search out a multitude of texts 
in which the Holy Spirit is expressly called God. 
But (a) the simple appellation God, is not of 
itself sufficient to prove the supreme divinity of 
the subject to whom it is given, as Christ him- 
self declared, John, x. 34, 35, coll. s. 37. The 
texts therefore which ascribe divine attributes 
and works to the Spirit are far more important 
than texts of this class, and prove all that is 
essential, (b) It is doubtful in many of these 
texts, in which the predicate God is used, whe- 
ther -the Holy Spirit as a person is intended. 
Many of them, at least, may be explained with- 
out necessarily supposing a personal subject, ac- 
cording to the analogy of the texts mentioned, 
s. 39, I. 

The following texts are often quoted : — Acts, 
v. 3, 4. Peter tells Ananias (ver. 3) that Satan 
had induced him <fysvaaa$ai to TLvsvpa, 6-yiov, and 
afterwards (ver. 4) ovx i-^cvau av^rp^xo^, dw.a 
^9 0£<p. The same subject who is called the 
Holy Spirit in one place is called God in the 
other. But from the comparison of other pas- 
sages, it might be thought that the TLv£v(m aytov 
was here to be understood in the subjtctive sense, 
and denoted the Spirit dwelling in the apostles; 
the higher knowledge and gifts with which they 
were endowed ; their miraculous powers, as in 



144 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ver. o% and the passage could accordingly be 
explained thus : your crime is not to be considered 
as if you had intended to deceive mere men, be- 
cause you knew that God had endowed us with 
supernatural knowledge. This explanation is 
confirmed by the very clear text, 1 Thess. iv. 8, 
He who despises us, despises not men, but God, 
tov Bovta id Hvsvua avzov fo ayiov sl$ qua*;. 
Cf. Ex. xvi., where it is said, ver. 2, that the 
Israelites rebelled against Moses and Aaron ; but 
Moses tells thein, ver. 8, your rebellion is not 
against us, but against God, whose messengers 
we are. Does this prove that Moses and Aaron 
belong to the godhead 1 But when it is proved 
from other texts that Christ, the apostles, and the 
early Christians, understood theUvsvpa dytov to 
be a personal subject, belonging to the godhead, 
(as those concerned in this event undoubtedly 
did,) then this text and many of the following 
may be regarded as satisfactory proof of the divi- 
nity of this Spirit. But when introduced before 
these texts, by which their meaning is deter- 
mined, or out of their relation to them, they prove 
nothing. The sense of the text in Acts, as deter- 
mined by the preceding texts, is plainly this : 
for you to intend to deceive us who are apos- 
tles — us, whom you knew to be under the spe- 
cial influence of the Holy Spirit — is to be con- 
sidered the same as if you had intended to deceive 
God; for you knew that he from whom this 
influence proceeds is regarded by us as God. 
The same may be said with respect to the for- 
mula of baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19. It cannot, in 
itself considered, be used as a proof-text, be- 
cause the mere collocation of the name Holy 
Spirit with that of the Father and Son does not 
prove that he possesses divine nature in com- 
mon with them. Vide s. 35. But when his 
divinity has been proved by other texts, then this 
also may be cited ; because from the former we 
learn how the latter must be understood, and 
was actually understood in the first ages of the 
church. The passage, 2 Cor. iii. 17, 'O 8e Kvpio$ 
to Ii.vsvad £6to has sometimes been translated, 
the Spirit is Jehovah himself. But the meaning 
is, Christ is the true Spirit of the Old Testa- 
ment — i. e., the Old Testament contains essen- 
tially the same doctrine which Christ taught— 
viz., the necessity of the renewal of the heart, 
and inward piety. Some have endeavoured to 
prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit from a 
comparison of different texts; but in doing this 
they have often resorted to forced and unnatural 
interpretations. An instance of this may be 
seen in the comparison of the texts Isa. vii. 
8 — 10 and Acts, xxviii. 26, 27. In the former 
of these we read, Jehovah said, Go to this people, 
&c. ; but in the latter, Hv svua to ayiov i'hA'krjSs 
Sva Haaiov — hiyov, x. t. "k. Here the same per- 
son who in the former text is called rrfrv, in the 
latter is called livivua ayiov. But Uvsvpa ayiov 



may be used in its more general sense for the 
Deity, and does not here necessarily designate 
the person of the Holy Ghost. Vide s. 39, I., 
and s. 19,11. 

We have now considered some of the most 
important texts of scripture in which we are 
taught the doctrine that (1) there is only one 
God: but that (2) in this one divine nature 
there are also three, described as personal sub- 
jects, and called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; 
and that (3) these three possess in common the 
divine nature. Respecting the manner in 
which these three make one God, we are taught 
nothing in the Bible, since the subject is of such 
a nature as not to admit of its being explained 
to us. Vide s. 33. It is not therefore strange 
that in their attempts to illustrate it theologians 
should have pursued such different methods; that 
in endeavouring to explain what is inexplicable, 
they should have been compelled to call in the 
aids of human philosophy; and that, for the 
very reason that the whole subject is beyond 
their reach, they should have differed so widely 
from each other in the opinions which they 
have entertained respecting it. We should here 
therefore refer to the remarks made upon this 
subject, s. 33. A general view of the whole 
will be given at the end of Chapter Second, to 
which we now proceed. 



CHAPTER II. 

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 

SECTION XLI. 

ARE THERE IN JEWISH OR HEATHEN WRITINGS 
ANY TRACES OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 
WHICH WERE NOT DERIVED FROM CHRISTIAN 
SOURCES? 

I. Traces of this Doctrine in the Old Testament, the 
Apocrypha, and the Chaldaic Paraphrases. 

Some have endeavoured to prove that the 
Jews had some knowledge of the Trinity, or at 
least of a plurality of persons in the godhead, 
from all these sources. But (a) the texts cited 
from the Old Testament in proof of this point do 
not by themselves perfectly establish it, as has 
been shown, s. 34. Neither (h) are the texts 
cited from the Apocrypha altogether satisfactory. 
The appellation Xoyoj ®sov, which occurs fre- 
quently in the Book of Wisdom and in Sirach, 
cannot be clearly proved in any one instance to 
designate a person of the godhead, but signifies 
either the divine oracles and revelations, as Sir. i. 
5, or the divine decrees and will, as Sir. xliii. 2(5, 
iv "koycp avtov Qvyxsitai rCavta. Book of Wis* 
dom, xviii. 15, Xoyoj ©fov 7iavto5vva[jio^ coll. ix. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



145 



I, xvi. 12. Nor does the appellation Son of 
God, in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 13 — 20, desig- 
nate the Messiah, but, in a more general sense, 
a favourite of God, one approved by Heaven, a 
righteous person. The phrase Holy Spirit, used 
in the same book, (chap. ix. 17, 18,) there 
means only a holy temper, virtue, temperance, 
continence, sanctitas animi; cf. ix. 4, 10. (c) 
The terms »•> -h frnpip, dti^n *npip are used very 
frequently in the Chaldaic paraphrases, and 
seem, as there employed, to designate a person, 
and have therefore been compared with the ap- 
pellation xoyoj ®sov, and considered as indi- 
cating the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a 
very important argument. It is doubtful, 
however, whether these terms were understood 
by the Jews contemporary with the paraphrasts 
as titles of the Messiah, or whether, as many sup- 
pose, they were regarded as synonymous with 
tinmen, majestas divina. The whole subject 
needs a new investigation. Vide Paulus, Zum 
Anf. des. Evang. Johannis. 

[Note. — Whatever may he said of the use of 
the term xoyo? in the Apocryphal writings, it 
cannot be doubted that the term ofo^ta, in the 
Book of Wisdom, an iEgyptico- Jewish produc- 
tion, is used hypostatically. Wisdom is there 
represented as a being of the purest light, pro- 
ceeding before the creation from the substance 
of God, as his perfect image, and the creator 
and governor of the world. Cf. i. 6; vii. 
22—27; viii. 1, 3; ix. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 18, x. 
The writer of this book had before him the per- 
sonification of this divine attribute in the Old 
Testament, the nDDn of Prov. viii. xi. ; but his 
representations very much surpass that in bold- 
ness; and this must be ascribed to the influence 
of that extravagant philosophy, strangely com- 
posed of oriental and Platonic ideas, which 
then prevailed at Alexandria, and which, not 
content with personifying, distinctly hyposta- 
tized the divine attributes. The influence of 
this philosophy was more strongly exhibited in 
the hypostases of Philo and the Cabbalists, and 
afterwards, in the peculiar modifications of some 
Christian doctrines, adopted by the Alexandrine 
catechists. These different systems of inde- 
pendent powers, proceeding from the source of 
all being, formed, as they were, upon these 
hints in the Old Testament, under the influence 
of a foreign and corrupting philosophy, bear but 
little resemblance, indeed, to the Trinity of the 
New Testament. And notwithstanding all 
these presentiments of the truth found in unin- 
spired writers before the Christian era, the doc- 
trine of the Trinity must be regarded as alto- 
gether an articulus purus. — Tr.] 

II. Traces of this Doctrine in the Writings of Plato, 
the New Platonists, Philo, the Cabbalists, Sfc. 

We find clear evidence of a belief in a certain 
19 



sort of trinity in all these writers, although they 
differ in the mode of explaining it, and under- 
stand by it something very different from the 
Trinity of the Bible. This evidence is as fol- 
lows : — 

1. Plato believed in a supreme being existing 
from eternity, but he also believed in an un- 
created, eternal matter, the former the source of 
all good, the latter, of all evil. The origin of 
the visible world, its relation to God, and his 
influence upon it, were explained by him from 
the principles of the system of emanation — a 
system which the mind naturally adopts when 
it begins to speculate on subjects of this nature, 
and which is, accordingly, more ancient and 
universal than any other system of philosophy. 
(It is probable that, in conformity with the ge- 
neral principles of this philosophy, the ideas of 
which Plato spake were material ; though this 
is disputed. Vide Plessing, Versuche zur Auf- 
klarung der Philosophic des altesten Alter- 
thums; Leipzig, 1788, 8vo.) The system of 
Plato may be thus stated: God first produced 
the ideal world — i. e., his infinite understanding 
conceived of the existence of the world, and 
furmed, as it were, the plan of the creation. 
The real world was then formed after this ideal 
world, as its model; and this was done by 
uniting the soul of the world, which proceeded 
from the Divine Being, with matter, by which 
the world became an animated, sensitive, ra- 
tional creature, guided, pervaded, and held to- 
gether by this rational soul. The three princi- 
ples of Plato were thus, {a) the supreme God, 
whom he calls Ila-r^p ; (b) the divine understand- 
ing, which he calls, vovs, ^^luo-upyoj, %6yos, ow^p, 
notyla, x. t 1 . "K. ; and (c) the soul of the world. 
He indeed distinguished the two last principles, 
in some respects, from the supreme God, but 
still accounted them as belonging by derivation 
to the divine nature. These view r s are fully 
developed in his Timaeus, and elsewhere. It 
appears, then, that Plato believed in a Trinity, 
or three principles in the Divine Being; but 
whether he actually hynostasized these princi- 
ples is doubtful, though ^ is affirmed by the 
New Platonists. 

A somewhat different statement of the Pla 
tonic system is given by Oelrich, in his " Com- 
mentatio de doctrina Platonica de Deo," &c. 
According to him, Plato divided all things intv> 
two classes — that which is real, unproduced, im 
mutable, capable of being discerned only by the 
reason, (vorjtos, intelligibilis ,-) and opposed to 
this, that which is produced, mutable, material, 
and cognizable by the senses, aia^To^, sensibi- 
lis.) The latter must have a cause of its exist- 
ence; and this cause is the Creator of the 
world, who, in imitation of the perfect ideal iu 
his understanding, in which all the reality, sub 
stance, and true being of things was contained, 
N 



146 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



wrought rude matter into the present sensible 
world. But since what is animated is more per- 
fect than what is inanimate, and God, as the 
most perfect being, could not make anything 
otherwise than perfect, he imparted a soul to 
this sensible world. But this soul of the world 
is not a self-existing divine principle, since its 
nature participates in what is material and mu- 
table, as well as in what is real and immutable, 
and consequently is neither one thing nor the 
other, but an intermediate being composed of 
the two. According to this statement, Plato 
did not conceive of a number of hypostases in 
the Deity ; for the divine understanding (Xoyoj) 
could not be imagined to be different from God 
himself, and the soul of the world belonged nei- 
ther to the being of God, nor was regarded as a 
self-subsistent principle. Many passages in his 
writings, however, were so perverted and mis- 
applied by the New Platonists, that they seem- 
ed to afford ground for their assertion that he 
really distinguished a number of hypostases in 
the Divine Being. Hence the strange and 
manifold form in which the Platonic doctrine of 
God was exhibited by Numenius, Plotinus, 
Porphyry, Jamblicus, Proclus, Chalcidius, Ma- 
crobius, and other New Platonists, and also by 
the Christian fathers of the second and third 
century. 

[Note. — In favour of the alleged Triad of 
Plato, cf. Souverain, Le Platonisme devoile, 
translated by Loffler into the German, under 
the title Versuch fiber den Platonismus der 
Kirchenvater. Ben. Carpzov, Trinitas Pla- 
tonis, &c. ; Lipsice, 1693. Cudworth, Systema 
intellectuale hujus universi. In opposition to 
the Triad of Plato, cf. Tiedemann, Geist der 
speculativen Philosophic, 2 bd. s. 118, ff. 
Tennemann, System der Platon. Philosophie, 
3 bd. s. 149. Geschichte der Philosophie, 2 
bd. s. 387. Paulus, Memorabilien, an Essay, 
Ueber den gottlichen Verstand aus der Platon. 
Philosophic— Tr.] 

2. The New Platonists eagerly embraced 
these ideas of Plato, and during the second and 
third centuries after the birth of Christ, seemed 
to labour to outdo one another in explaining, 
defending, and more fully developing them. 
We have, for example, a work of Plotinus, rtspl 
fuiv tpiCiv ar>%Lxu>v vTiorrtatfiuiv — (i. e., Deus su- 
premus, mens, anima mundi.) These New 
Platonists, however, not only differ widely from 
Plato, but often disagree among themselves 
in their mode of thinking, and in their phraseo- 
logy- 

3. The learned Jews, who lived beyond the 
bounds of Palestine, especially those who re- 
sided in Egypt, and in the other Grecian pro- 
vinces, had imbibed, at an early period, (doubt- 
less a considerable time before the coming of 



Christ,) many of the principles of the philoso- 
phy prevailing in the regions where they re- 
sided, and had connected, and as it were incor- 
porated them with their previous opinions, and 
with their established religious system. They 
first received the principles of the Grecian, and 
especially of the Platonic philosophy, as then 
taught, into their own belief; and afterwards, 
as is common with theologians, endeavoured 
to find them in the ancient sacred books of their 
own nation; and in order to this, they inter- 
preted many expressions of their sacred books 
in accordance with their newfangled notions. 
They were encouraged to do this the more, 
from the opinion which they entertained, that 
Plato had derived many of his ideas from 
Moses and other Hebrew writers. These fo- 
reign learned Jews seem also to have been in- 
fluenced in their speculations by the principles 
of the theory of emanation. This oriental ele- 
ment may have been introduced in different 
ways into the later Jewish philosophy. The 
Jews must have become acquainted with this 
system during their residence in Chaldsea, where 
it appears to have formerly prevailed; and they 
probably brought many of its principles with 
them on their return to Judea; and in this way 
it may have passed into the system of the later 
philosophizing Jews. They must also have re- 
ceived a large portion of this orientalism, when 
they adopted the Platonic, or rather New Pla- 
tonic philosophy, since the latter is wholly based 
upon the system of emanation. But, from 
whatever source derived, this system is found 
in the oldest writings of the Cabbalists, — those 
of the second centur}-; and from these writings 
it is obvious that it was not of recent origin, but 
had been received by many learned Jews, before 
and at the Christian era. Vide Joh. Fr. Kleuker, 
Ueber die Natur und den Ursprung der Emana- 
tionslehre bey den Kabbalisten; Riga, 1786, 
8vo. These principles were indeed wholly un- 
known to most of the Jews who lived within 
the bounds of Palestine during the lifetime of 
Christ, and afterwards. They were satisfied 
with their Pharisao-rabbinic theology, and look- 
ed for the Messiah as a religious reformer, and 
a temporal king. This was not the case, how- 
ever, with the Jews who lived beyond the bounds 
of Palestine, and who were educated under the 
influence of the Grecian philosophy; they for 
the most part abandoned the expectation cf a 
future Messiah, or regarded his. kingdom as en- 
tirely of a moral nature. It is among these 
learned Jews out of Palestine that the theory of 
the Xoyos is found as early as the first century. 
They regarded the Xoyoj as existing before the 
creation of the world, and as the instrument 
through whom God made all things. They 
entertained also the same notions respecting the 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



147 



spiritual world and the emanation of spiritual 
substances, or aeons, from the divine nature, 
&c, as are found among the Platonists of that 
day. And entertaining these views, derived 
from the Platonists, they endeavoured to find 
them in the OJd Testament ; and, as appears from 
the example of Philo, carried all their precon- 
ceived opinions, by means of allegorical inter- 
pretation, into their ancient books. Philo speaks 
often in the Platonic manner of the Aoyoj, call- 
ing him the Son of God, the first-born Son of 
God, (in distinction from the world, which was 
the younger son,) the first servant of God, 
Sevttpos 0£o 5 -, x. -t. %. The Cabbalists fre- 
quently speak in their writings of Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit; and there are many passages 
in the books of Philo in which a kind of trinity 
is taught, and in which his Platonic ideas are 
clothed in Biblical language. Thus, for exam- 
ple, in his work "De opificio Mundi," there is 
mention of a supreme God, and of one begotten 
of him, (elsewhere called TCpcototoxo^, %byoq, 
rovj, x. r. a..,) who was fulltoi; ®siov ILvEvixaro^. 
Vide Carpzov, Philoniana, p. 157. 

4. When now, at a later period, the Christian 
doctrine became known to these Grecian Jews, 
and was embraced by them, they began to con- 
nect with it the philosophical notions then pre- 
ralent respecting the invisible world, the gra- 
dation of spirits, the superior aeon, who was of 
divine origin, &c. They affirmed that the Son 
of God existed long before the man Jesus, and 
that in process of time he united himself with 
this man, in order that he might be better able 
to benefit men by his instructions, to exert his 
influence upon spirits, and to weaken the power 
which evil beings exercised to the injury of our 
race. They regarded the Holy Spirit as the all- 
enlivening and ever-active power, which flows 
forth from God, and is equally efficient in the 
physical and moral world. These opinions, de- 
rived partly from Grecian philosophy, and partly 
from Jewish and Christian theology, grew gra- 
dually in favour with the more learned Chris- 
tians ; they were variously developed and modi- 
fied by the different parties of the early Chris- 
tian church; until at length, in the fourth cen- 
tury, one party obtained ascendancy for its own 
peculiar theory and phraseology, to the exclusion 
of all the rest. 

From the foregoing statements we arrive at 
the following conclusion : — viz., (a) It cannot 
be denied that many of the ancient heathen phi- 
losophers (e. g., the Platonists) believed in a 
trinity in the divine nature; and that they were 
led to entertain that belief by the principles of 
the theory of emanation, which they had first 
adopted. From this source many learned Jews, 
who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine, drew 
their opinions — e. g., the Alexandrine Jews, 



Philo, and the Cabbalists. These Grecian 
Jews did not, however, simply adopt the pure 
ideas of Plato, which were variously represented 
even by the New Platonists, but they mixed 
and incorporated them with their own national 
opinions and their own religious principles, and 
thus endeavoured to reconcile Platonism with 
the language and doctrines of the Bible. That 
a trinity, 'in this sense, was known and professed 
by philosophers and Jews who were not Chris- 
tians, is admitted. But (6) the representations 
of this subject which are found in the writings 
of Plato and his followers, whether pagans or 
Jews, by no means agree with the simple repre- 
sentations of the Trinity contained in the word 
of God, nor even with those which prevailed 
among Christians throughout the Roman em- 
pire, after the Nicene Council in the fourth cen- 
tury. For, according to the Platonists, the 
second and third principles belonging to the 
Deity were widely distinguished from the su- 
preme God ; they were produced from him, were 
subordinate to him, and altogether less than he; 
though yet, from their derivation, they were re- 
garded as belonging to the Divine Being, and 
were often, indeed, called God. Such, however, 
is not the representation of the Trinity contained 
in the Bible, or in the distinctions established at 
the Nicene Council. But although the Platonic 
trinity differs thus widely from the scriptural 
doctrine, and also from the established theory 
of the church, it is yet possible that the scho- 
lastic and technical language in use on this 
subject was originally borrowed by Christians 
from the Platonic theology. 

[Note. — Besides these traces of a trinity in 
the godhead found among the Platonists, Alex- 
andrine Jews, Cabbalists, &c, we may mention 
those found among the Indians in their trimurti 
(triad), composed of three spirits, Brahma, 
Vischnu, and Schiva, produced from the su- 
preme Deity. For a fuller account of this, cf. 
Fr. v. Schlegel, Weisheit der Indier, s. 108 ; 
Heidelberg, 1808, 8vo. J. K. F. Schlegel, 
Ueber den Geist der Religiositat aller Zeiten 
und Volker, 2 th. s. 7, f. ; Hanover, 1814, 8vo. 
Maurice, Indian Antiquities; London, 1796. 
In vols. iv. v. the oriental triads are extensively 
investigated. The author finds "the holy Tri- 
nity" in all his travels in the East. The 
Egyptians also have a trinity, consisting of 
Knuph, the eternal, all-pervading soul of the 
world, connected with Phtha (original light) 
and Neith (Wisdom.) For an account of this, 
cf. besides the above-named work of J. K. F. 
Schlegel, 1 th., s. 192, Fr. Kreuzer, Symbolik 
und Mythologie der alten Volker, s. 78, f. of 
Moser's abridgment. On the general subject, 
cf. Tholuck, Die speculative Trinitatslehre der 
neuern Orientalen ; Berlin, 1826, 8vo.— Tr.] 



148 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION XLII. 

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR- 
ING THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES BEFORE 
THE N1CENE COUNCIL. 

Notice of some of the works which cast light on this 
portion of Dogmatic History. 

Vol. ii. of the work of Dionysius Petavius, 
the Jesuit, — "De Theologicis Dogmatibus," 
Ed. 2, 6 vols. ; Antwerpiae, 1700, fol. — contains 
a collection of passages from the early fathers 
relating to the doctrine of the Trinity ; but should 
be consulted rather for the passages themselves 
than for the compiler's exposition of them. 
Book ii. of the work of Jo. Forbesius, a Corse, 
" Institutiones historico-theologicse;" Amstel. 
1645. Both of these writers endeavour to prove 
the agreement of the earliest Christian writers 
with the common orthodox doctrine as esta- 
blished in the fourth century. But this agree- 
ment of the ante and post Nicene writers cannot 
be proved merely from their having used the 
same words and phrases, as has often been very 
plausibly contended ; for the earlier writers often 
used these words and phrases in an entirely dif- 
ferent sense from that in which they have been 
employed since the fourth century. This re- 
mark must be kept in mind in forming an esti- 
mate of those works which were written with 
the professed object of proving the entire agree- 
ment of the doctrine of the Trinity as held by 
the earliest Christian fathers and as established 
in the fourth century at the council of Nice — e. 
g., G. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicsenae, 2 vols. ; 
Londini, 1703. Burscher, Scriptorum antiquis- 
simorum Doctrina de Deo Triuno et J. Christo; 
Lipsiae, 1780, 8vo. 

The following works are composed with great 
critical accuracy, and with a careful regard to 
the peculiarities of the writers of different pe- 
riods — viz., Dr. Semler, Einleitung in die 
Geschichte der christlichen Glaubenslehre, pre- 
fixed to the three parts of Baumgarten's Po- 
letmik ; also his Sammlung iiber die Beweisstel- 
len in der Dogmatik, th. ii. s. 1 ; Halle, 1768, 
8vo. Souverain, Platonisme devoile, 1700 ; 
translated into German, under the title, Versuch 
iiber den Platonismus der Kirchenvater, with 
notes and a preface by Loftier, 1782, 8vo; re- 
published with an additional Essay by Loftier, 
Ueber das Entstehen der Dreyeinigkeitslehre 
unter den Christen, Ziillichau, 1792, 8vo. Cf. 
the Review of this work in the Lit. Zeit. Nr. 
295—297, 1793. C. F. Rossler, LehrbegrifF 
der christlichen Kirche in den drey ersten 
Jahrhunderten ; Frankfort am Main, 1775; also 
his greater work, Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, 
10 thle; Leipzig, 1776 — 86, 8vo ; in which he 
gives extracts from the doctrinal writings of the 
ecclesiastical fathers. The works of Meiners 



and Oelrichs on Platonism must be noticed here, 
though referred to more particularly under an- 
other division of this section. The new works 
of Lange, Muenscher, and Augusti, on dogmatic 
history, must also be here cited. 

[Note. — The latest and most distinguished 
investigators of this difficult portion of dogmatic 
history are, Neander, Gieseler, and Schleierma- 
cher. The first of these, in that portion of his 
Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion 
und Kirche, devoted to the history of doctrines, 
is thought to have given the best history of this 
doctrine yet offered to the public. The Kirehen- 
Geschichte of Gieseler is principally valuable 
for a full and excellent selection of extracts from 
the fathers. Schleiermacher has entered upon 
an investigation of the opposition between the m 
Sabellian and Athanasian theories — a sphere of 
inquiry which had been nearly overlooked in the 
zeal and diligence with which every ramification 
of the more urgent and threatening heresy of 
Arius had long been examined. 

The results to which these writers have come, 
while they confirm the general view of the his- 
tory of this doctrine given by Dr. Knapp, differ, 
however, in several important particulars. Some 
of these different results the translator had in- 
tended to introduce as notes, in their appropriate 
places, and thus to render this history more 
complete, and in some parts more correct. But 
he found this undertaking attended with great 
inconveniences, and that it would swell this 
chapter, already very much extended, to an im- 
moderate length. He therefore concluded to 
publish this history as given by Dr. Knapp, with 
only an occasional reference to the authors where 
other views may be found, and with here and 
there a brief additional statement. It may, how- 
ever, be hoped that some fruits of the labours of 
Neander, Gieseler, and Schleiermacher, will be 
reaped ere long by the American public. — Tr.] 

I. Doctrine of the Trinity as held by Primitive 
Christians. 

Christians from the earliest times were re- 
quired, agreeably to the command of Jesus, to 
profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, at the time of their baptism ; and these 
names were often used on other occasions, and 
were introduced, as appears from the New Tes- 
tament, as opportunity presented, in all the dis- 
courses intended for Christian instruction and 
edification. It will of course be presumed that 
the first teachers of Christianity did not merely 
repeat these names before those to whom they 
administered the ordinance of baptism ; they must 
also have exhibited the ideas to be connected 
with these names, and have explained the whol8 
purport of that profession which was required 
What this instruction was we cannot learn ex- 
actly, since, beside the New Testament, we have 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



149 



no credible written records of the first century 
containing information on this point. From the 
New Testament, however, and from the frag- 
ments of the oldest symbols, (collected by 
Walch in his Bibliofheca symbolica vetus ; 
Lemgo, 1770, 8vo,) we may be satisfied thus 
far, that this instruction was short and simple, 
and wholly free from subtle and learned dis- 
tinctions. The early teachers of Christianity 
were satisfied with instructing the people re- 
specting the works of God (ceconomicis operi- 
bus), and in pointing out to them the various 
and undeserved benefits for which they were 
indebted either to the Father, Son, or Holy Spi- 
rit, according to the nature of these benefits ; 
and they abstained in their instructions from re- 
fined and scholastic distinctions. This is evi- 
dent from the writings of the oldest church 
fathers, Justin the Martyr, Ireneeus, and Tertul- 
lian. Justin the Martyr, for example, says that 
Christians bound themselves to believe in the 
Father, as the supreme God and the Governor 
of the world ; in Jesus, as the Messiah (Xptff-r'oj) 
and Saviour (Sco-r^p), who had died for them; 
and in the Holy Spirit, who foretold by the pro- 
phets everything relating to Christ, and who 
counsels and guides those who believe in him. 
These ancient symbols were gradually enlarged 
by various additions intended to oppose the va- 
rious errors which from time to time arose. 
Such, however, as has been represented, was 
the simplicity with which this doctrine was at 
first taught. And even Origen, in his Books 
7tspi dp^wv, states the sum of the doctrines for- 
merly taught to the people to be, the doctrine 
of the Father, as creator and preserver ; of the 
Son, as the highest ambassador of God, and 
himself both God and man; and of the Holy 
Spirit, as holding a place beside the Father and 
the Son, and entitled to equal honour. As these 
primitive Christians were not, as a general 
thing, scientifically educated, were wholly un- 
accustomed to speculate on religious subjects, 
and contented with those practical views which 
they obtained from their teachers, and which 
they found most conducive to their comfort and 
edification ; so their teachers were contented to 
present the simple truths of religion without any 
minute and philosophical distinctions : and this 
was the right course, and they found the advan- 
tage of pursuing it. 

II. Doctrine of the Trinity as held in the Second 
and Third Centuries. 
Towards the end of the first century, and 
during the second, many learned men came over 
both from Judaism and paganism to Christi- 
anity. At that period the New Platonic philo- 
sophy was becoming more and more prevalent 
in the Grecian provinces, and especially in 
Egypt, and indeed had been embraced before 



this, in the first century, by many of the learned 
Grecian Jews. Vide s. 41 ; and Meiners, 
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Denkart der ersten 
Jahrhunderte nach Christi Geburt, in einigen 
Betrachtungen iiber die neuplatonische Philo- 
sophic; Leipzig, 1782, 8vo ; and Jo. Jac. Oel- 
richs, Comment, de doctrina Platonica de Deo, 
&c. ; Marburg, 1788, 8vo — an able and funda- 
mental work. These learned Jews and pagans 
brought over with them into the Christian 
schools of theology their Platonic ideas and 
phraseology, and they especially borrowed from 
the philosophical writings of Philo. And as 
they found in the religious dialect of the New 
Testament some expressions which apparently 
resembled those to which they had been before 
accustomed in their philosophical dialect, it was 
no difficult matter for them to annex their pre- 
conceived philosophical notions to the language 
of scripture, and thus to carry their whole philo- 
sophical system into the Bible ; exactly as 
Philo had before carried his peculiar system 
into the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament. 
Vide s. 41. 

But we find that those learned Christians of 
the second century confined themselves, in their 
philosophizing respecting the Trinity, princi- 
pally to the Logos; and this was very natural, 
since the name Aoyoj is applied even in the New 
Testament to Christ, and since so much had 
been said and written respecting him by the Pla- 
tonists. These philosophizing Christians con- 
nected in general the same ideas with the name 
Xoyoj, as had been done before by Philo and 
other Platonists, (vide s. 41 ;) and differed only 
in this, that they referred the whole to the person 
of Christ, and endeavoured to associate their 
philosophical speculations with Christian truth. 
Such in general is the fact with respect to the 
earliest ecclesiastical fathers — e. g., Justin the 
Marty, (Dial.- cum. Tryph. Iud. c. 61,) Tatian, 
Athenagoras, (in his Apology,) and Tertullian, 
(Adv. Praxeas, c. 2, seq. ;) the latter of whom 
in this respect follows the example of the Gre- 
cian fathers. On several smaller points these 
writers indeed differ from one another ; but in the 
following general views, all of which are based 
upon the Platonic system, they perfectly agree — 
viz., The Logos existed before the creation of 
the world; he was begotten, however, by God, 
and sent forth from him. By this Logos, the 
New Platonists understood the infinite under- 
standing of God, which they conceived to be, 
as it were, a substance which emanated, with 
its functions, from God. They supposed that 
it belonged from eternity to his nature asa^otoer, 
but that, agreeably to the Jivine will, (3oiX?;uaTo 
©tov, as Justin expresses it, in the passage above 
cited,) it began to exist out of the divine nature, 
and is therefore different from God its creator 
and father, and vet, as begotten of him, is en- 
n2 



150 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



tirely divine. Hence the Logos is denominated 
by Athenagoras rtpw-rov ysvvrjfxa, the first-begot- 
ten; and Justin, in the passage above cited, says, 
©f6j ysyivvqxsv t| lau-r'ou 8vvafj,tv tcva %o- 
yoxvjv, which was sometimes called 6o|a Kvpiov, 
sometimes Ttoj, cro^ta, ayyg^oj, and sometimes 
©£o$, Kvpws, and Aoyoj. By means of this 
Logos they supposed that God at first created, 
and now preserves and governs the universe. 

The Holy Spirit was more rarely mentioned 
by these early fathers, and their views respect- 
ing him are far less clearly expressed than con- 
cerning the Son. Most of them, however, agreed 
in considering him a substance (the term used 
by Tertullian) emanating from the Father and 
the Son, to whom, on this account, divinity 
must be ascribed. Tertullian says, Est Spiritus 
a Patre per Filium. [Vide Neander, b. i. Abth. 
3. s. 1039, ff.] 

Respecting these three, the early fathers con- 
tended that they were one. Athenagoras says, 
that with these three there was svcaais lv Sv^d/xti, 
but lv ?y to.%ti Sualpeat,;. Origen and Novatian 
make exactly the same representation in the 
third century. It is obvious, however, that the 
•unity (sVcotjcs, unitas) of which many of these 
philosophical fathers speak is nothing more than 
unanimity, agreement, correspondence in feelings, 
consent in will, in power, and in the application 
of power to particular objects. They do not 
mean, by the use of this word, to signify that 
the Son and Holy Spirit were God, in the full 
meaning of the word, and in the same sense in 
which the Father is God. In short, these phi- 
losophical Christians asserted rather the divine- 
ness of the Son and Spirit, and their divine ori- 
gin, than their equal deity with the Father. 
Justin the Martyr expressly declares that the 
Son is in God what the understanding (vovj) 
is in man, and that the Holy Spirit is that divine 
power to act and execute which Plato calls aps*^. 
With thisrepresentation,Theophilus of Antioch, 
Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen, substan- 
tially agree. The name Father is used, according 
to them, in relation to all existing things ; the 
name A6yo$ to %oyvxd, and Holy Spirit to moral 
perfections. According to Tertullian, the per- 
sons of the Trinity are gradus, formse, species 
unius Dei. Thus it is obvious that these philo- 
sophical fathers of the church entertained far 
different views of the divinity of the Son and 
Spirit, of which they often speak, than we do 
at the present time; and this because they were 
more influenced by their Platonic ideas than by 
the declarations of the holy scriptures. 

But when, in after ages, the learned were no 
longer familiar with the Platonic ideas by which 
these early fathers were influenced, they very 
naturally misunderstood their writings, and, de- 
ceived by some resemblance of phraseology, 
ibuted to them that system of belief which 



was afterwards established as orthodox. Intc 
this mistake, Bull, Burscher, and many others, 
have fallen. Various causes conspired to give 
the opinions on the subject of the Logos, which 
have now been described, an extensive influence 
among Christians of a learned and philosophical 
cast, during the second and third centuries : 
these opinions were advocated by the most dis- 
tinguished teachers of that period ; and espe- 
cially they were in entire agreement with the 
principles of the Emanation and Platonic phi- 
losophies, which were then so universally preva- 
lent. It thus becomes evident that Arianism 
existed in the church long before the time of 
Arius ; and that he was only the means of bring- 
ing to a more full development, and to a more 
consistent and systematic form, a doctrine which 
had arisen in a much earlier period. Indeed, 
the belief in the subordination of the Son to the 
Father, for which Arianism is the later name, 
flowing as it did directly from Platonic prin- 
ciples, was commonly adopted by most of those 
fathers of the second and third centuries who 
assented in general to the philosophy of Plato. 
And had not Divine Providence interposed in a 
special manner, there is reason to think it would 
have been the established doctrine of the church. 
But there was another class of learned, philo- 
sophizing Christians, who either rejected the 
principles of the Platonic philosophy, or applied 
them differently from the orthodox fathers; and 
these substituted another theory in place of that 
which had prevailed on the subject of the Tri- 
nity, which however, no less than the one which 
they rejected, was formed rather from their philo- 
sophical ideas than from the instructions of the 
Bible. Among the writers of this class was 
Praxeas, of the second century, to the confuta- 
tion of whose errors Tertullian devoted an en- 
tire book. Praxeas contended that the Father, 
Son, and Spirit were not distinguished from 
each other as individual subjects; but that God 
was called Father, so far as he was the creator 
and governor of the world ; Son (Aoyos) so far 
as he had endowed the man Jesus with extra- 
ordinary powers, and enabled him to teach and 
to suffer for the good of the world, &c. In ac- 
cordance with this view, Theodotus denied any 
higher, pre-existing nature in Christ; and with 
him Artemon agreed, and in the third century 
Noetus and Beryllus of Bostra. They agreed 
in rejecting the existence of the Logos, as a 
particular subject in God, before the birth of 
Jesus; and supposed that what was extraordi- 
nary in the person of Christ was merely the 
divine influence of the Father, (called Son, 
Logos, &c.,) which dwelt in Jesus, and acted 
through him. But among these opinions, which 
arose in opposition to the general doctrine of the 
orthodox fathers, the theory of Sabellius, who 
flourished in the third century, was the most 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



151 



celebrated. Sabellius regarded the terms Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, as merely describing dif- 
ferent divine works, and various modes of divine 
revelation. According to him there is only one 
divine person (jila V7t6<jfaats)i but a threefold 
divine work, or three forms (rp/a rtpocrcorta), in 
which God has revealed himself to men. With 
Sabellius agreed, for the most part, Paul of Sa- 
mosata, who also flourished in the third century. 
He rejected the personal distinction in the god- 
head, and in opposition to it, contended that the 
Son was ouoovgios or 6vvov6io$ ta TLa-tpi — i. e., 
unum idemque cum, Patre. It was in this sense 
of the word o-iqovglo^, as involving the denial of 
a personal distinction in the godhead, that it was 
condemned by the third council held at Antioch. 
In opposition to these theories, the disciples of 
the Alexandrine school contended with great 
zeal for the Lfouv vrtoa-tacsiv, the proper personality 
of the Logos. 

[Note. — The seceders from the catholic faith 
here described were in the early ages commonly 
denominated 3fonarchians, because they insisted 
upon the unity of God, which they supposed in- 
fringed by the common doctrine which placed 
three eternal persons in the divine nature. Mo- 
narchiam tenemus, they said often, when compar- 
ing themselves with the orthodox fathers. But 
this general class comprehended many who dif- 
fered more from each other than they did even 
from those reputed orthodox, and who indeed 
had nothing in common but a great zeal for 
monotheism, and a fear lest the unity of God 
should be endangered by the hypostases of the 
Alexandrine fathers. Without any regard, how- 
ever, to these essential differences, all who, in 
behalf of the divine unity, in the first centuries, 
rejected the doctrine of distinct persons in the 
Deity, are here thrown promiscuously together, 
as they have commonly been. And Theodotus, 
Artemon, and Paul of Samosata, are placed by 
the side of Praxeas, Noetus, Beryllus of Bos- 
tra, and Sabellius, between whom and them- 
selves, on every essential point of Christian 
doctrine, there was a total opposition. They 
agreed only in denying that the prophoric Lo- 
gos, whom they admitted as a power or ma- 
nifestation of the Deity, existed before his in- 
carnation as a distinct person; while with re- 
gard to the manner of his being in Christ they 
differed as widely as possible. Theodotus and 
his followers supposed this divine energy to be 
in Christ merely as influence exerted upon him, 
in the same way as upon the ancient prophets, 
though in a higher degree. They thus regarded 
Christ as a man inspired and commissioned by 
God ; and differed but little in opinion respecting 
him from the ancient Ebionites, or from modern 
Unitarians. Praxeas, on the contrary, and those 
of his school, supposed that this divine, though 
impersonal energy, or God himself, was in 



Christ, in a manner altogether new and peculiar, 
not acting upon, but dwelling in and forming 
one with him. In Christ, then, they saw a full 
and complete representation of the Deity, and 
went beyond even the catholic fathers in the 
views which they entertained of his divinity ; 
so that, in answer to the objections urged against 
his doctrines, Praxeas is said to have asked his 
opponents, ri xaxbv rtotw 6o|ct^cov Xpisrov ; It 
was on account of this intimate union, and 
almost identity, for which they contended, be- 
tween God and Christ, that they were charged 
by their opponents with teaching that the Father 
himself suffered in the passion of Christ, and 
were hence called ^fortaa^tVat, patripassiani, 
patripassians. There is plainly, therefore, oc- 
casion for a subdivision among those who agree 
in rejecting the previous hypostatical existence 
of the Logos. 

In the following table the writers of the three 
first centuries on the subject of the Trinity are 
ranged according to their opinions. 



Catholic. 

1. Justin the Martyr 

2. Theophilus of Antioch 

3. Athenagoras 

4. Irenseus 

5. Clemens Alexandrinus 

6. Tertullian 

7. Origen 

8. Dionysius Alexandrinus 

9. Cyprian 

10. Novatian 

11. Dionysius Romanus. 



MoXARCHIAXS. 

(x) Unitarians. 

1. Theodotus 

2. Artemon 

3. Paul of Samosata. 

(2) Patripassians. 

1. Praxeas 

2. Noetus 

3. Beryllus of Bostra 

4. Sabellius. 

Tr.1 



III. Terms employed in the Discussion of this Doc- 
trine during the Second and Third Centuries. 

The theologians of this period, in the learned 
discussion and the scientific statement of this 
doctrine, made use of some peculiar and appro- 
priate terms, which they found convenient, as 
concerted watchwords, to distinguish those of 
their own party from others who differed from 
them. Vide Morus, p. 67, 68, s. 12. The 
more the prevailing theory was controverted, 
the greater was the number of new terms in- 
vented by the different parties, who laboured to 
state their opinions as clearly and distinctly as 
possible, and thus to secure their system from 
contradiction. These new modes of expression 
were first employed in the Oriental church, and 
were introduced into it from schools of heathen 
philosophy; indeed, they can most of them now 
be found in the writings of Plotinus, Porphyry, 
Proclus, and other Platonists of that age; and 
even those which do not seem to be directly 
borrowed from this foreign dialect, are yet ana- 
logous to the terms employed bj these Platonic 
philosophers, and are used in the same sense 
and spirit which they give to their terms. This 
newly-invented phraseology was afterwards in 



152 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



troduced from the Grecian church into the Latin, 
by Tertullian, who enlarged it by some terms 
of his own. He therefore must be regarded as 
the principal author of that ecclesiastical dialect 
on the doctrine of the Trinity, (as well as on 
the other doctrines,) which was first adopted in 
the African church, and afterwards generally 
throughout the Latin church, and which has 
come down to us improved and extended by his 
successors. Among the terms which were em- 
ployed in the discussion of the doctrine of the 
Trinity during the second and third centuries, 
the following are the most common — viz. : 

1. TpJaj. This term is among those which 
were employed by the Platonic philosophers, 
Plotinus, Proclus, &c, who spoke of many tri- 
ads in the Deity. It was first introduced into 
the discussion of the Trinity among Christians, 
as far as we can learn, by Theophilus of Anti- 
och, of the second century ; and was afterwards 
often used by Origen in the third century. It 
was translated into the Latin by Tertullian, by 
the word trinitas ; and the phrase trinitatis 
unitas, answering to the i'vcofftj of Athenagoras, 
occurs in his book, Adver. Praxeam, c. 2, 3, &c. 
[Of this word the English trinity is the exact 
translation.] It is less correctly rendered in 
German by the word Dreyeinigkeit [the usual 
term for denoting the Trinity among German 
theologians; less accurate, however, than the 
word trinity, because it expresses agreement of 
affection and will merely, and therefore seems 
to lean towards tritheism. It contains the same 
implication as would be expressed in the Eng- 
lish word trianimity, if such a word may be 
supposed.] It was at first rendered into German 
by the w T ord Dreyfaltigkeit [Anglice, triplicity'], 
which, however, was opposed by Luther, as fa- 
vouring the Sabellian view of the divine nature. 
Basedow recommends that the word Dreyeinheit 
[triunity~\ be used to denote this doctrine, and , 
to render the Latin trinitas. And this word, it 
must be confessed, would better express the 
scriptural doctrine and the theory of the church 
at the present day than the term commonly 
employed. It is less proper, however, than 
Dreyeinigkeit, to express what was intended in 
the second and third centuries by the terms 
tfpMxs, trinitas, trinitatis unitas, which was not 
so much the unity and perfect equality of nature 
as simple agreement of will, which is exactly 
rendered by the word Dreyeinigkeit. The lat- 
ter word, on the other hand, taken in its common 
and literal acceptation, does not express the 
doctrine of the Bible and of the church at the 
present day, so well as the term Dreyeinheit 
[triimity .] If we wished to designate this 
doctrine by a German word as various and com- 
prehensive in its meaning as the Latin trinitas, 
TEnglish, trinity,'] the word Dreyheit would be 
the best; but if we wished to express more ex- 



actly the doctrine of the Bible, and the present 
belief of the church, we must prefer the word 
which Basedow has recommended — viz., Drey' 
einheit [triuniiy .] 

2. Ovcrt'a vTioaraa^. These terms were not 
sufficiently distinguished from each other by 
the Greek fathers of the second and third cen- 
turies, and were often used by them as entirely 
synonymous. Tertullian translates ovala by 
substantia, and affirms substantia unitatem in the 
Trinity. By the word vrtoG-tavic, the older Greek 
fathers understood only a really existing subject, 
in opposition to a nonentity, or to a merely ideal 
existence; in which sense they also not unfre- 
quently used the word ovola. Thus, according 
to the Platonists, the Aoyoj existed in God even 
from eternity, but at first as an impersonal idea, 
and became an hypostasis only shortly before the 
creation of the world, in order that the world 
might be created by him. The New Platonists 
employed the word v^cardvat in reference to the 
deity in itself, and called their triads vrto&'tdcfsis, 
or fa vfyLGifaueva. Vide Proclus, Tim. p. 131, 
177. But the meaning of this word has gradu- 
ally been altered in later times, especially since 
the fourth century. Vide s. 43, II. 2. 

3. Persona. This word was first employed by 
Tertullian, in the passage above cited ; and by 
it he means, an individual, (subjeclum intelli* 
gens,') a single being, distinguished from others 
by certain peculiar qualities, attributes, and re- 
lations; and so he calls Pater, Filius, Spiritus 
Sanctus, ires personse, at the same time that he 
ascribes to them unitas substantias, because they 
belong to the divine nature (ovslo) existing from 
eternity. He asserts this in opposition to Prax- 
eas, who would allow of no distinction between 
Father, Son, and Spirit. Among the Greeks, 
Origen is the first who used the word vrtoGtaGis 
in a sense like that which Tertullian connects 
with persona ,• and he accordingly says, We be- 
lieve in three vrtoGtaGtis, IlaWpa, Tlov, xal Il^fv- 
/xa dytov. 

ECTION XLIII. 

HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR- 
ING THE FOURTH CENTURY ; AND OF THE DIS- 
TINCTIONS ESTABLISHED AT THE NICENE COUN- 
CIL, AND SINCE ADOPTED IN THE ORTHODOX 
CHURCH. 

I. The Trinity, as held in the Fourth Century. 

It had already been settled by many councils 
held during the third century, and in the sym 
bols which they had adopted in opposition to 
Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, that the Father 
must be regarded as really distinguished from 
the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinguished 
from both. But there had been as yet no con- 
troversy among the learned respecting the mu- 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



153 



tual relation of the three persons of the Trinity, 
or respecting the question in what the distinction 
between them properly consists ; and these sub- 
jecs were accordingly left as yet undetermined 
by the decisions of councils and symbols. Vide 
s. 42. The learned men of this period, there- 
fore, entertained different opinions on these sub- 
jects, and were at liberty to express themselves 
according to their own convictions. At length, 
however, one of these opinions prevailed over 
the rest, and through the influence of those 
fathers by whom it was advocated, and through 
the patronage of the imperial court, was adopted 
by the Nicene Council, and authoritatively pre- 
scribed as' a rule of faith of universal obligation. 

Origen and his followers had maintained 
against the Sabellians that there were in God 
tfpEtj vrtoc?ra3£cj, (tres persons,) but t uiav ovdiav, 
(una substantia,) which was common to the 
three. They had not, however, or at least but 
few of them, as yet taught, that these three per- 
sons were entirely equal to one another; but, on 
the contrary, had allowed, in accordance with 
their Platonic principles, that the Son, though 
belonging to the divine nature, was yet subor- 
dinate to the Father. But at length, in the be- 
ginning of the fourth century, Alexander, Bishop 
of Alexandria, and Athanasius, his successor, 
attempted to unite the hypotheses of Origen and 
Sabellius, thinking that the truth lay between 
the two extremes, and that the subordinate per- 
sons of Origen, or the one undistinguished na- 
ture of Sabellius, were alike inconsistent with 
the representations of the Bible. In forming 
his theory, Athanasius exhibited great sagacity 
and penetration, and it must be allowed to have 
a decided superiority over the partial and un- 
scriptural theory of Arias. He stated the per- 
sonal distinction of the Father and the Son to 
be, that the former was without beginning and 
unbegotten, (dmp^o?, ayiw^tos,) while the latter 
was eternally begotten (yswqtos) by the Father, 
and equally eternal with the Father and the 
Spirit. 

The Arian controversy began about the year 
320. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had 
taught the doctrine iv rpidSt /.iovd8a slvat. This 
doctrine was disputed by Arias, a presbyter of 
Alexandria, who affirmed that it was inconsist- 
ent with the personal distinction in the Deity, 
and therefore favoured the Sabellian theory. As 
the controversy proceeded, the breach widened, 
and Arius at last distinctly affirmed, in opposi- 
tion to the Sabellians, that there were not only 
three persons in God, but that they were unequal 
in glory (5o£<uj ovx 6,uo«u) ; — that the Father 
alone was the supreme God (wylwiytfoj), and 
God in a higher sense than the Son; — that the 
Son derived his divinity from the Father before 
the creation of the world, and that he owed his 
existence to the divine will Qts7.ry.oTfi Qeov rtpb 
20 



%povu>v xai rtpo ouwkov xfio&ii) ; — and that the 
Holy Spirit was likewise divine in a sense in- 
ferior to that in which the Father is so. These 
doctrines were not in reality different from those 
entertained by the early Christian fathers, who 
had come under the influence of the New Pla- 
tonic Philosophy. They were, however, carried 
out by Arius to all their legitimate consequences, 
and stated by him in a more distinct form than 
had been done by any who preceded him. [For 
a more particular statement of the system of 
Arius, from his own writings, vide Hahn, Lehr- 
buch des christ. Glaubens, s. 242 ; Gieseler, 
b. i. s. 334. Cf. Neander, Allg. Gesch. b. ii. 
Abih. 2, s. 770.] 

It was not long, however, before different 
parties arose among the followers of Arius, who 
adopted different modes of expression. Some 
maintained that the Son is in all respects unlike 
the Father, (y.atd ndvra dvouotj.) [These are 
called by different names, descriptive of their 
doctrine — viz., dvouocot, Anomoians, also Hete- 
rousians ; and also after their leaders, Aetius, 
Bishop at Alexandria, 362; Eunomius, Bishop 
at Cyzicus, 392; Acacius, Eudoxius, &c. 
This party prevailed at a council held at Sir- 
mium, 357, and their confession of faith is con- 
tained in the Formula Synodi Sirmiensis. — Tr.] 
Others contended that the Son, though not of 
the same, was yet of a similar nature with the 
Father, (uuolov?i.os ?c> rfafpt.) [These were 
called ouocorcjidtfrae., 'Hutdpeiot, Semi- Arians, 
also Eusebians, from Eusebius, Bishop of Nico- 
media, who endeavoured to reconcile the ad- 
herents of Arius and Athanasius. At first, this 
party was outnumbered by the stricter Arians 
in the council above mentioned, held at Sir- 
mium, 357. But under their leaders, Basilius, 
Bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, Bishop of 
Laodicea, they united the year following in a 
synod at Ancyra, where they rejected alike the 
Arian and Nicene formulas, and anathematized 
alike those that held that the Son is diouoiov 
xax' oi'jiav fo rtarpi', or that he is ouoovoiov rj 
tavcooisLov ta rta-rpi. — Tr.1 All the Arians, 
of whatever party, agreed in rejecting the term 
ouoovjcoj, because, in their view, it set aside the 
personal distinction in the Deity, and made the 
Son unum idemque cum Patre. For the same 
reason, the orthodox of the third century had 
condemned it in Paul of Samosata. Vide s. 42. 

But in opposing the Arians, some of the 
teachers of this period fell into the opposite ex- 
treme, and professed a scheme substantially the 
same with that of Sabellius. Of this class were 
Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, and Photinus, 
Bishop of Sirmium. [The former of these was 
a zealous advocate of the Nicene formula, and 
was probably betrayed by his zeal for the 
o/ioovffeo?, unconsciously, into the error of Sa- 
bellius. Though condemned by the Arians and 



154 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Semi-Arians in a council held at Constantinople, 
(336,) he was approved by the Council held at 
Sardica, and was favourably regarded by Atha- 
nasius, and generally in the Western church. 
Vide Neander, b. ii. Abth. 3, s. 841. Photi- 
nus, on the other hand, boldly and deliberately 
advocated Sabellianism, and was condemned 
not only by the Eusebians, in the second Coun- 
cil at Antioch, (343,) but also by the Western 
church in the Council at Milan, (346.) The 
opposition of the Arians and Semi-Arians 
against these men, in the council at Sirmiam, 
very much conduced to the union of all anti- 
Athanasians. — Tr.] 

In opposition to all these, and various other 
theories, Athanasius and his adherents contended 
with great zeal. Their great object was to find 
the true medium between Arianism and Sabel- 
lianism, and to establish certain formulas in op- 
position to both. And in this they succeeded ; 
and at a general council at Nice, in the year 325, 
a symbol was adopted, which was designed to 
be thenceforward the only standard of orthodoxy. 
[The Nicene symbol is as follows : — " Hiatisv- 
o/jlsv sis sva ®sbv, IlaWpa riavtioxpdtiopa, 7tdvtiu>v 
bpatiuv tie xai aopa-r'cov rtonqti-qv. Kai) sis sva 
YLvpiov 'Ijytfow ~X.pi<3tibv, tibv Tibv tiov ®sov, ys v- 
vrf^svtia ix tiov Ilarpoj, uovoysv/j, tiovtistftiiv, ix 
tiijg ov6ia$ tiov Hatpb$, Qsbv ix ®sov, $u>j ix (patios, 
®sbv afk^ivbv ix ®sov dh^ivov, ysvvr^tivtia, ov 
Ttoiyf^svtia, bpiooviliov tia> IXaT'pt, hi ov tid rtdvtia 
iysvbtio, tid tis sv tia ovpavcp xai tid iv tirj yjj, tibv 
di <yjua$ tiovs dv$pJd7tov$ xai §ta tir\v ri^stispav 6<x>ti-/]- 
ptav xatisX^tovtia, xai oapxu&ivtia, xal ivav^tpioTtr^- 
6avtia, 7td^6vtia xai dvaatidvtia tirj tipitiy} ^/*ipa, 
dvs%$6vtia sis tiovs ovpavovs, xai ip%6fisvov xpivav 
^uvtiag xai vsxpovs- Kai sis tib ayiov Uvsvua. 
Toi>f 8s "kiyovtiasi otic r )\v rCotis otis ovx i[v, xai rtpiv 
ysvvfj^vai ovx qv, xai oil i% ovx bvticov iysvstio, rj 
i\ stispas vrtoatidascos rj ovcias tydaxovtias sivai, rj 
xtiiGtibv, tipbrCtibv, rj dhhoiatibv tibv Tibv tiov ®sov, 
dva^suati^si r) xa^'kixyj ixxhrjGia."] This sym- 
bol was confirmed at the council held at Con- 
stantinople in the year 381, under Theodosius 
Ihe Great, and so enlarged as to meet certain 
heresies which had in the meantime arisen. [A 
sect called Ttvsvpatopdxoi, Pneumaiomachians, 
who agreed generally in opinion with the Semi- 
Arians, maintained that the Holy Spirit has not 
the same relation to the Father which the Son 
has, but derives his existence directly from the 
Son. Those of this sect were afterwards called 
Macedonians, in honour of Macedonius, who 
was deposed from office by the stricter Arians 
on account of his adherence to this doctrine. 
In opposition to this doctrine it was that the fol- 
lowing addition was made to the Nicene formula 
respecting the Holy Spirit: — Uiatitvofisv sis tib 
ayiov Uvev/xa, (tio Kvpiov, tio £<x>ojtoibv, tib ix 
tiov Tlatipbs sxrCopevofAsvov, tib 6vv Jlatipi 
xai Ttcj GvijiTtpo6xvvovy.svov xai GvvSo^a^ofAsvov, tib 



hahyjaav 8ia tiZ>v rtpo^^T'tov.) Respecting the 
clause tib ix tiov Tlatipbs ixriopsvo^svov, a serious 
difference afterwards arose, which ended at 
length, in the eleventh century, in the entire 
division of the Eastern and Western churches 
which still subsists. Vide No. III. I. (c) 
Third, of this section. — Tr.] 

The distinctions established at the Councils 
of Nice and Constantinople w r ere often re-en- 
acted at various councils during the succeeding 
ages. To the Arians, however, and to many 
who were not Arians, they still appeared to be 
not only unfounded but injurious. They in- 
sisted that tritheism was the inevitable conse- 
quence of the admission of these distinctions, 
though Athanasius strongly protested against 
this conclusion. Some were actually accused 
of tritheism during the sixth century, though 
they probably were chargeable with no other 
fault than an unguarded use of language. [The 
principal writers who fell under suspicion of 
tritheism were John Ascosnages, a learned 
Syrian, and teacher of philosophy at Constan- 
tinople, a. d. 565 ; and his disciple, John Phi- 
loponus, a celebrated grammarian of Alexandria, 
a. d. 641. Among the schoolmen, Roscellinus, 
Gilbert de la Porree, Peter Abellard, and Jo- 
achim of Flora, were condemned on account of 
tritheism. — Tr.] 

Notwithstanding all opposition, however, the 
distinctions adopted in the Council at Nice re- 
mained in force; and so carefully were they 
guarded, that during the whole period between 
the fourth and the sixteenth centuries but few 
were found bold enough to dissent, or to broach 
any novelties, and those few found scarcel} r any 
adherents. Even the schoolmen, who were so 
much addicted to speculate and refine on other 
subjects, remained faithful, as a body, to the 
distinctions once established on the subject of 
the Trinity. 

II. Terms employed, in the Discussion of this Doc- 
trine since the Nicene Council. 

1. Ova ia, substantia. This term, like all the 
others in common use in the discussion of this 
doctrine, is in itself very ambiguous, and was 
employed in various senses even by the ecclesi- 
astical fathers of this period. It was used to 
signify (a) whatever really exists, in opposition 
to what has no existence, or exists merely in 
imagination. Vide s. 42. (6) Whatever exists 
for itself has personal self-subsistence, in short, a 
person. Hence some, in opposition to Sabellius, 
spake of tipsis ovaiai iv ®sa. (c) The entire sum 
of the attributes which belong to a thing, its na- 
ture. In this sense it was employed when it 
was said that three persons belonged to the 
ovaia ®sov. Hence the phrase uixootaios, con- 
substantialis. 

2. '"VrtoGtiaais and rtposwtor. The former 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



155 



of these words gave occasion to much contro- 
versy on account of its ambiguity, some con- 
tend. ng for uiav vrtoGtatjiv, others for rps tj vtCo- 
ctdoeis. Before the Nicene Council, as we 
have seen, s. 42, vrt6ataoi$ and ovoia were em- 
ployed by the ecclesiastical fathers as synony- 
mous ; even in the Nicene symbol they appear 
as interchangeable words, {yTioctaG^ rj oiaia;) 
and Hieronymus, still later, contended for unam 
hypostasin (i. e., owiW) in God. But, as we 
before said, Origen had previously contended 
that there were tpei$ vTioatdasii and fila ovzla 
in God, making a distinction between these 
words. In this he was followed by many 
writers; and at length this distinction which he 
had introduced was established by ecclesiastical 
authority in opposition to the Arians; although 
many still continued, according to the ancient 
custom, to use vrioa-taa^ and ovffta one for the 
other. In order to obviate the perplexity thus 
occasioned, and to put an end to the strife about 
words, many writers in the Greek church be- 
gan, shortly after the Nicene Council, to use 
the word ripoa^ytov instead of i^os-fa:?^. The 
former of these is an exact translation of the 
persona, which had been before introduced into 
the Latin church by Tertullian. But neither 
was this word free from ambiguity ; and it was 
objected to by many, because it seemed to fa- 
vour the theory of Sabellius, who was willing 
to admit that in the divine nature there were 
three Ttpoacorta, meaning by the word different 
aspects ox forms in which God revealed himself 
to men. The orthodox, however, employed this 
term in the sense in which it had been used by 
Tertullian, and afterwards by Augustine and 
others. Vide s. 42. The sense they intended 
to convey by it was, that the three subjects 
spoken of were truly distinguished from each 
other, and acted each for himself, eos esse a se 
invicem sic distinctos, ut singulis sua intelligentia 
et sua actio tribuenda sit, Morus, p. 67, s. 12. 
And that this is a truth taught in the Bible must 
be evident to all who impartially examine its 
instructions. It was with a particular reference 
to the Sabellian theory that this word was 
adopted by the fathers. In opposition to this 
theory they also sometimes said, the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit w 7 ere clMjos xal a%%o<; — i. e., 
different subjects, though not a7i%o xal aXko — i. 
e., of different nature, as the Arians affirmed. 

3. 'Oixoovaios, consubstantialis, Morus, p. 69, 
s. 13, No. 2 — one of the most difficult and con- 
troverted of all the terms employed on this doc- 
trine. According to the oldest Greek usage it 
signifies, what belo?igs to the same species, or has 
the same nature, being, properties, with another 
thing. Thus Aristotle says, rtdvta ta d-j-rpa 
o/xoovolo., and Plato says, respecting souls, that 
they are uuoovnicu ^9. Thus, too, Chrysostom 
says, Adam was upoovaws with Eve, and re- 



specting Jupiter and Neptune, Homer says, 
duyotspoiaiv o/jlop yivo$, both were of one race, 
born of one father, II. xiii. 354, seq. This term 
had been used by the Sabellians and Paul of 
Samosata, in the third century, to signify an en- 
tire indentity of nature ; and when they said the 
Son was ouoovoios 1 9 jtarp/, they meant that he 
was unum idemque, so that no personal distinc- 
tion existed between them. Hence this term 
was rejected by the orthodox -of that period. 
Vide s. 42. But when, in the fourth century, 
at the Nicene Council, the Arians too rejected 
it, supposing it to mean, what they denied, that 
the nature of the Son was the same with that of 
the Father; the orthodox then adopted it, ex- 
pressly guarding, however, against the Sabel- 
lian misinterpretation. They explained them- 
selves thus : — The Son was not created (%<ti<s- 
£-£t$5 rtoir^sis), but eternally generated (ysvvr t - 
^£t's) from the nature of the Father, (ovsba 
Ila-tp6$,) and is therefore in all respects equal to 
him, and no more different, as to nature, from 
God than a human son is from his father, and 
so cannot be separated from the Father. In this 
way was the term ouoovgios defined by the ortho- 
dox fathers, so as to guard alike against the 
Arians and Sabellians. What the relation de- 
signated by this term is they never positively 
explained ; nor could they do so, since we are 
unable to form any ideas respecting the internal 
connexion in the godhead. All that they meant 
to teach by the use of this word was, that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had the divine na- 
ture and divine perfections so in common that 
one did not possess more and another less; 
without asserting, however, that there were 
three Gods; in short, that in the godhead there 
were tres distincti, unitate essentise conjuncti. 
This is the doctrine contained in the creeds of 
the Lutheran church. It admits of a simple 
and intelligible explanation, and in the manner 
now pointed out may be kept clear from refine- 
ment and subtlety. Vide Morus, p. 69, 70, s. 
13, extr. n. 2. Moreover, it is a doctrine which 
is taught in the Bible, as we have seen in chap- 
ter first of this article. 

III. The characteristics by which these persons may 
be distinguished from one another. 

If these three supposita are really distinguished 
from one another, there must be some signs by 
which this distinction can be recognised; and 
these signs must be of such a nature as to indi- 
cate a real personal distinction. In short, we 
must be able by these signs to distinguish these 
subjects, not merely as different names or attri- 
butes of God, or as different modes by which he 
has revealed himself to men, but as really dis- 
tinct persons. Now there are two classes of 
signs (characteres personales, sive hypostatics* 
yviopio^a.ra tSiuymra c%et<.xd) by which theolo- 



156 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



gians undertake to distinguish these persons 
from one another. 

1. Internal, character es interni. These are 
distinctive signs which arise from the internal 
relation of the three persons in the godhead to 
each other, and which indicate the mode of the 
divine existence, (peculiaris subsistendi modus, 
tportos V7tdp%£tc>$.) They are also called proprie- 
tates personales. To discover and explain what 
is this internal relation which exists in the god- 
head is indeed a difficult task, since we have no 
definite notions respecting the internal nature 
of the Divine Being. But rather than pass the 
subject in silence, theologians have laid down 
the following distinctions, which they derive 
from the names Father, Son, and Spirit, and 
from some other Biblical phraseology. 

(a) The Father generates the Son, and emits 
the Holy Spirit, general Filium, spirat Spirilum 
Sanctum ; and possesses, therefore, as his per- 
sonal attributes, generatio activa and spiratio 
adiva. By these representations nothing more 
is intended than that the divine nature was com- 
municated from eternity to the Son and Holy 
Spirit, and that there is a certain internal, ne- 
cessary, and eternal relation between the Father, 
Son, and Spirit, which, however, we are not able 
fully to explain. This personal characteristic 
of the Father was called by the early writers 
oyEvvj^cfta, avapxla, patemitas. "iStov tfov Hatpo^ 
wyswnaia,, said Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 31. 
" Patris est generare, non generari." Ac- 
cordingly, the Father was said to be amp^oj 
wyivvytog, a7tvtv6to$, avt6$eo$, TLy\yq, altla,fons, 
radix, nrincipium divinitatis. 

(6) The Son is generated by the Father ; Filii 
est generari, non generare ; l8i,ov tov Tlov q 
ysvvr]Gi$, according to Gregory, in the passage 
above cited. So that the Son possesses as his 
personal attributes, ysvvrjSia, filiatio generatio 
passiva, and also, as he is supposed to emit the 
Spirit in conjunction with the Father, spiratio 
activa ; with regard to the latter characteristic, 
however, there was dispute between the Eastern 
and Western church, of which we shall shortly 
spe'ak. 

(c) The Holy Spirit neither generates nor is 
generated, hut proceeds from the Father and Son; 
Spiritus Sancti est, nee generare nee generari, sed 

PROCEDERE J l§LOV TfOV HvSV/AdlfOS rj 8X7tE[lty$, 

said Gregory, as above. What he calls exTteptys 
is called by other Greek writers, 7tvoy\, rfpoj3o?^, 
and by Basilius, nipooSoj Ix ®eov. 

Respecting these attempts to determine ex- 
actly in what the internal distinction between 
the persons in the godhead consists, we have to 
remark, 

First, that they were wholly unknown to the 
oldest writers, both of the Greek and Latin 
ohurch, and were first made by the catholic party 
of the fourth century, when they wished to draw 



the line of distinction between themselves aud 
the Arians on the one hand, and the Sabellians 
on the other, as finely as possible, as we have 
already seen in No. I. 

Secondly. In stating these internal personal 
characteristics of the three persons in the god- 
head, theologians have indeed selected terms 
which occur in the Bible, (such as beget, proceed, 
&c.,) and would seem to have drawn their whole 
phraseology on this subject directly from thence. 
But even if we should allow that these terms are 
always used in the Bible to denote the internal 
relation existing between these divine persons, 
we should not be at all advanced by them in oui 
knowledge of what this relation is, since we am 
wholly unable to detect that secret meaning 
which lies concealed beneath them, and which 
God has not seen fit to reveal. We cannot con- 
cede, however, that all these terms are used in 
the Bible to denote the communication of the 
divine nature and the internal relation existing 
between the persons of the Trinity ; certainly 
not, that they are always so used. The term to 
beget, for example, denotes in many passages, 
not the communication of the divine nature to the 
Son of God, but his appointment to the kingly 
office, or the Messiahship. Thus the passage, 
Psa. ii. 7, Thou art my So?i, this day have I be- 
gotten thee, though often cited in the New Tes- 
tament, is never brought to prove the divine na- 
ture of the Son of God, but is always supposed 
to refer to the confirmation of his Messiahship 
by his resurrection from the dead. The same 
might be said of many other passages in which 
similar phraseology is used. Vide s. 34, No. 
4 ; s. 37, ad finem ; and Morus, p. 64, n. 2. 
The name Son of God is indeed, in some pas- 
sages, given to Christ, in designation of his 
higher nature, his equality with the Father, and 
his internal relation to him ; though even then it 
does not enable us to understand what this re- 
lation is, which we have reason to think lies 
beyond the reach of our knowledge. All the 
idea which we are justified in deriving from this 
name is, that Christ as truly participates in the 
divine nature as the Father, laa ©set Hat pi, just 
as, among men, the son as truly participates in 
human nature as the father, l<sa Hatpi cu-^pwrtoj. 
Again, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the 
Father, which is spoken of, John xv. 26, denotes 
merely his being sent and commissioned, and by 
no means his divine nature and internal relation 
to the Father and the Son. Vide s. 39, II. 1 ; 
and Morus, p. 67, note. 

Thirdly. With regard to the Holy Spirit more 
particularly, we may remark, that during the 
first three centuries of the Christian era there 
was nothing decided by ecclesiastical authority 
respecting his nature, the characteristics of his 
person, or his relation to the Father and the Son. 
The learned men of this period, therefore, being 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



157 



left unshackled by authority, indulged them- 
selves freely in philosophizing upon this subject, 
and adopted very different theories ; as we find 
in the writings of Justin the Martyr, Origen, and 
others. Cf. s. 42. Nor was anything more 
definite with regard to his nature and his rela- 
tion to the other persons of the Trinity than what 
has already been stated, established by the 
council at Nice, or even by that at Constantino- 
ple. To believe in the Holy Spirit, to avv 
Hatpi xal Ttci (Sv^ripodxvvov^Evov, and ex tov 
Ilatfpos ixjtopsv6[jt,£ vov, was all that was 
required in the symbol there adopted. It was 
not long, however, before dissension arose with 
regard to the latter phrase between the Greek 
and Latin church. The Greek fathers adhered 
for the most part to this formula, without going 
into any more minute distinctions; so Basilius, 
Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and 
others ; though Epiphanius added to the formula, 
ix fov U<xtpo$ ixitopEvo^Evov, the explanatory 
clause, ex tov Tlov "kdpfiavov, according to John, 
xvi. 15; and John of Damascus, in the eighth 
century, represented that the Spirit did not pro- 
ceed from the Son, but from the Father through 
the Son — a representation which had before been 
made by Novatian, (Spiritum Sanctum a Patre 
per Filium procedere,) and which undoubtedly 
was derived from John, xv. 26, I will send you 
the Comforter from the Father. With this modi- 
fication the formula adopted by the Council at 
Constantinople, and appended to the Nicene 
symbol, was retained in the Greek church. But 
there were many, especially in the Latin church, 
who maintained that the Holy Spirit did not 
proceed from the Father only, but also from the 
So?i. They appealed to John, xvi. 13, and to 
the texts where the Holy Spirit is called the 
Spirit of Christ — e. g., Rom. viii. 9, seq. To 
this doctrine the Greeks were for the most part 
opposed, because they did not find that the Spirit 
was ever expressly said in the New Testament 
to proceed from the Son. It prevailed, however, 
more and more in the Latin church; and when, 
in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Arians, who 
then prevailed very much in Spain, urged it as 
an argument against the equality of Christ with 
the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from 
the Father only, and not from the Son, the ca- 
tholic churches of that region began to hold more 
decidedly that the Holy Spirit proceeded from 
both, {cib utroque,") and to insert the adjunct Fi- 
lioque after Patre in the Symbolum Nicseno-Con- 
stantinopolitanum. In this the churches of Spain 
were followed, first by those of France, and at a 
later period by nearly all the Western churches. 
But as the Eastern church still adhered substan- 
tially to the more ancient formula, it accused the 
Western church of falsifying the Nicene sym- 
bol ; and thus at different periods, and especially 
»n the seventh and ninth centuries, violent con- 



troversies arose between them. The true causes 
of these unhappy dissensions were, however, 
very different from those which were alleged ; 
and we have reason to suspect that they were 
less animated by zeal for the truth than by the 
mutual jealousies of the Roman and Byzantine 
bishops. But to whatever cause they are to be 
ascribed, these disputes terminated in the ele- 
venth century in that entire separation of the 
Eastern and Western churches which continues 
to the present time. Cf. Morus, p. 07, s. 11, 
note. Walch, Historia Controversies Grsecorum 
Latinorumque de processione Spiritus Sancti ; 
Jense, 1751, 8vo. Ziegler, Geschichtsentwicke- 
lung des Dogma vom heiligen Geist, th. i. 
Num. 2 of his "Theologische Abhandlungen," 
where he gives an historical account of the doc- 
trine of the Holy Spirit from the time of Justin 
the Martyr. Cf. especially s. 204, fT. of this 
essay. [Respecting the controversy in the 
Eastern and Western church concerning the 
Holy Spirit, cf. also Neander, b. ii. Abth. 2, s. 
891 ; and Hahn, Lehrbuch, &c, s. 247, s. 57.] 

Note. — Since these ecclesiastical terms de cha- 
racteribus personalibus intemis have now become 
common, they cannot be entirely omitted in the 
religious instruction of the people. Let the doc- 
trine, therefore, (according to the advice of 
Morus, p. 64, No. 2, and p. 67, Note extr.) be 
first expressed plainly and scripturaliy thus: 
The Son is equal to the Father, and has the same 
nature with him ; but has this from eternity 
through the Father. It may then be remarked, 
that this doctrine is briefly expressed by the 
words, the Son is generated by the Father. Re- 
specting the Holy Spirit, let it be said, That he 
is equal to the Father and Son, and possesses 
the same nature with them; and it may then be 
added, that this is commonly expressed by the 
words, he proceeds from the Father and from the 
Son. 

2. External, characteres exierni. Morus, p. 
68. Note 3. These are characteristics of the 
persons of the Trinity arising from the works of 
the Deity relating to objects extrinsic to itself, 
and called opera externa, sive, ad extra. They 
are twofold : 

(a) Opera Dei seconomica, those institutions 
which God has founded for the salvation of the 
human race. They are the following: — The 
Father sent the Son to redeem men, John, iii. 
16, 17. He also gives or sends the Holy Spirit, 
John, xiv. 26. The Son is sent from the Father 
to accomplish the work of redemption, and sends 
the Holy Spirit from the Father, John, xv. 26. 
The Holy Spirit formed the human nature of 
Christ, Luke, i. 35, and anointed it, (unxit, Acts, 
x. 38,) i. e., endowed it with gifts; and is sent 
into the hearts of men, and carries them forward 
towards moral perfection. 

(b) Opera Dei attributiva, such divine workg 



158 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



as are common to the three persons, and are 
sometimes predicated of them all; but which 
still are frequently ascribed (attributive) to one 
of the three. Theologians, therefore, have the 
rule, Opera ad extra (attributiva'), tribus personis 
sunt communia. To the Father is ascribed the 
decree to create the world, the actual creation, 
and the preservation of it. To the Son also, the 
creation, preservation, and government of the 
world is ascribed; also the raising of the dead 
and sitting 1 in judgment. To the Holy Spirit is 
ascribed the immediate revelation of the divine 
will to the prophets, the continuation of the 
great work of salvation commenced by Christ, 
and the communication and application to men 
of the means of grace. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, 
s. 238.] 

SECTION XLIV. 

HISTORY OK THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY 
SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION. 

If we consider how obscure and full of diffi- 
culties the doctrine of the Trinity must have 
been, as commonly taught after the Nicene 
Council, we shall not wonder, that when, in the 
sixteenth century, the spirit of inquiry and spe- 
culation revived in the West, many attempts 
should have been made to illustrate and explain 
the prevailing theory, to rectify its mistakes, or 
wholly to abandon it for another more rational 
and scriptural. Many of the writers, whose in- 
tention it was to explain and vindicate the an- 
cient theory adopted at the Council of Nice, 
unconsciously deviated from it, and thus placed 
themselves in the ranks of the heretics. None, 
however, of the very numerous attempts which 
have been made since the sixteenth century to 
illustrate this doctrine, and vindicate it against 
the objections of reason, can lay claim to entire 
originality. The germ, at least, of many mo- 
dern hypotheses may be found in the writings 
which belong to the period between the second 
and fourth centuries; and after all the inquiries 
then made, and the theories then published, it 
is not probable that much remains to be said. 
Nearly all, therefore, of those who have written 
on this subject since the Reformation, belong to 
some one of the general classes which have been 
before mentioned ; though it needs to be re- 
marked, that those who bear a common name 
often belong to very different classes. This 
was the case with those who spread from Italy 
in such numbers in the sixteenth century, under 
the general name of Unitarians. 

1. Some have attempted to illustrate and ex- 
plain this doctrine by philosophy ; and not a few 
have gone so far as to think that they could 
prove the Trinity a priori, and that reason alone 
furnishes sufficient arguments for its truth ; 
th High others of this class have looked to reason 



for nothing more than an illustration of this fact 
with regard to the divine existence, for the know- 
ledge of which they believed man indebted to 
revelation alone. In the latter class we may 
place Philip Melancthon, who, in his " Loci 
Theologici," explained the Trinity in the fol- 
lowing somewhat Platonic manner : — God, from 
his infinite understanding, produces thought, 
which is the image of himself. Our minds, too, 
produce thoughts, which are the images of 
things ; but we are not able to impart personal 
existence to our thoughts; to his thought, how- 
exer, God can do this ; and this his thought 
bears the impress of the Father, is his likeness 
and resemblance, and is hence called by John, 
Ttoyoj. This illustration of the Trinity was re- 
received without offence or suspicion, until the 
heresy which lurks beneath it was detected and 
exposed by Flacius. In connexion with this 
illustration, we may mention those drawn from 
nature. Many such are found in the writings 
of the fathers. Take, for example, that of Au- 
gustine, drawn from the human soul, which, he 
says, is one substance, with three principal pow- 
ers, memory, understanding, and will', respect- 
ing which it may be remarked, that it is hard to 
see why many other powers might not have been 
named as well as these. Vide Semler, Inst, ad 
doctrinam Christianam, 305. Or take, as an- 
other example, that illustration of the Trinity 
given at an earlier period by Lactantius, who 
compares it with light, which unites in itself 
fire, splendour, and heat. In all illustrations 
of this nature the fault is, that the mere powers 
and qualities of things which have no personal 
existence are used to represent the subsistence 
of a trinity in unity. Hence such illustrations 
are more favourable to the theory of Sabellius 
than to the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from 
the Bible, and established at the Council at Nice. 
The latest attempt to explain the Trinity in this 
manner majr be found in the September number 
of the " Berliner Monatschrift," for the year 
1790, s. 280, where there is an article entitled, 
" Neues Gleichniss von der Dreyeinigkeit," 
written by Schwab, counsellor, and professor 
at Stuttgard. Space, he says, cannot be seen, 
felt, or recognised by any of our senses, and yet 
must be regarded, he thinks, as something sub- 
stantial. It is, indeed, extended, and still one. 
This one substance has, however, three distinct 
dimensions, which are not arbitrarily assumed, 
and which cannot be considered merely as parts 
or accidents of space, but which belong essen- 
tially to it — viz., length, breadth, and thickness. 
Some chemists and theosophists suppose that 
there is, throughout the whole kingdom of na- 
ture, and even in material bodies, a threefold 
elementary principle, (as to the nature of which, 
however, they are not agreed,) and they refer to 
this as an illustration of the Trinity. 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



159 



But, as we have said, there were others who 
supposed that the Trinity could not only be 
illustrated by reason, but mathematically proved 
h priori. Among these were Bartholomew Kec- 
kermann, who wrote a " SystemaTheologicum," 
Peter Poiret, and Daries, who published an Es- 
say, " in qua pluralitas personam m in Deitate e 
solis rationis principiis, methodo Mathemati- 
corum, demonstratur;" Leovardiae, 1735, 8vo. 
The attempt of this kind which deserves most 
attention is that made by Reusch, a celebrated 
theologian and philosopher of Jena, in his "In- 
troductio in theologiam revelatam," — an attempt 
which was regarded by the late Dr. Gruner as 
entirely successful, and was adopted by him 
substantially in his " Institutiones theol. dog- 
mat," 1. i. c. 5. This demonstration is very 
much as follows :— In the divine understanding 
there are three acts : (a) God comprehends in 
his understanding the ideas of all things which 
can be conceived, and so far as he does this he 
is called Father; (b) he connects these ideas 
as means to an end, and devises all possible 
schemes or connexions of things in the possible 
world, and so far he is called Son; (c) from all 
these possible schemes, he selects, by his infi- 
nite wisdom, that which is best, and so far is 
called Holy Spirit. These acts of the divine 
understanding, in each of which there must have 
been a special exercise of the divine will, must 
be supposed distinct from each other; and yet, 
being in God, they cannot have been successive ; 
and, finally, they must be regarded as personal, 
or as actus hypostatici, and be designated by 
particular personal names. But how this last 
consequence follows, it is hard to see ; and where 
is the text from which it can be made to appear 
that any one of the inspired writers connected 
any such ideas with the names Father, Son, and 
Spirit] Another metaphysical demonstration 
has been proposed by Dr. Cludius, in his inau- 
gural disputation, Philosophica expositio et de- 
fensio dogmatis orthodoxi de Trinitate ; Gottin- 
gae, 1788. 

2. There have also been some in modern times 
who have expressed themselves so boldly on the 
subject of the Trinity that they have seemed to 
approximate towards tritheism, like those whom 
we have already mentioned in the sixth century. 
Vide s. 43, I. ad finem. To pass by those who 
have merely been unguarded in the manner in 
which they have defended and interpreted the 
Athanasian theory, we may mention in this class, 
Matthew Gribaldus, a Jurist of Padua, who flou- 
rished in the sixteenth century, and was for 
some time professor at Tubingen. He main- 
tained that the divine nature consisted of three 
equaLy eternal spirits, between whom, however, 
he admitted a distinction in respect to rank and 
perfections. [Kanry Nicolai, William Sher- 
lock, and Pierre Faydii, belong to this class.] 



3. Other modern writers have inclined to 
adopt the Sabellian theory as the ground of their 
views on the Trinity. Among these is Michael 
Serveto, or Servetus, a native of Spain in the 
sixteenth century, who published his views in 
seven books, " De trinitatis erroribus," and in 
his Dialogues, " De Trinitate." He taught that 
there is one God, who, however, has made known 
his will to men in two personates representationes 
— i. e., personal, or personified modes of reve- 
lation, called Aoyoj and Hvtv/xa ayiov. For these 
opinions he was brought to the stake by Calvin, 
at Geneva, 1553. Vide Mosheim, Leben Ser- 
vet's; Helmstadt, 1748, 8vo, republished with 
additions at the same place, 1750. The repre- 
sentation of the Trinity which Grotius gives in 
his "Silvse Sacree" leans towards Sabeilianism, 
and agrees substantially with the theory ad- 
vanced by Stephen Nye, an Englishman, in his 
"Doctrine of the Trinity;" London, 1701. 
God, he said, is a being who knew and loved 
himself from eternity; and his understanding is 
the Son, and his affection the Holy Spirit. [For 
a more full statement of this supposed demon- 
stration of the Trinity, vide Lessing, Das Chris- 
tenthum und die Vernunft; Berlin, 1784, 8vo. 
Mich. Sailer, Theorie des weisen ; Spottes, 
1781, 8vo. Marheinecke, Grundlehren der 
christ. Dogmatik, s. 129, 370, spq.; Berlin, 
1819. Leibnitz, Defensio logica Trinitatis.] 

In this class we must place the hypothesis of 
Le Clerc, who supposes that the terms Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, designate the different 
modifications of the divine understanding, and 
the plans which God forms. God is called the 
Father, so far as his understanding comprehends 
all things and surveys them at once; Son and 
Holy Spirit, so far as he produces and executes 
a particular thought. Of the same nature is the 
view of the Trinity which Dr. Loffier has ap- 
pended to his translation of Souverain. In God, 
he says, according to the New Testament, there 
is but one subject ; the Logos and Spirit are his 
attributes, powers, relations, or modes of opera- 
tion, and the term, Son of God, so far as it de- 
notes a personal subject, is applicable only to 
the man Jesus. Among the Arminians, and 
even among the Puritans of England, there have 
always been many who have inclined towards 
Sabeilianism. [This is the error into which 
Weigel and Jacob Boehmen fell, and which has 
always proved more seductive than any other to 
mystics and pietists, and persons who have 
mingled feeling and imagination with philoso- 
phical investigation. In this divergency from 
the established creed of the church, by far a 
greater proportion of the modern theologians 
and philosophers of Germany are found than in 
the Arian heresy, which was formerly so much 
more prevalent. They have so explained the 
Trinity as to lose the idea of three divine persons 



160 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



in the godhead, for which they have substituted 
either three distinct powers or attributes, (as 
Meier, Seiler, Cludius, and Tollner,) or a three- 
fold agency in God — three eternal actions dis- 
tinct from each other, as S. G. Schlegel, Kant, 
Tieftrimk, Daub, Schelling, De Wette, and 
Fessler. Among these Sabellian hypotheses, 
the one which is less devious from scriptural 
truth, and which is defended with the most so- 
ber argument, is that of Schleiermacher, who 
supposes that the established doctrine of the 
Trinity is a proposition which connects what 
we are taught in the scripture as to the three- 
fold mode of the divine existence — viz., the 
being of God in himself, absolutely considered ; 
his being- in Christ(the Son,) and his being 1 in 
the Christian church (the Spirit.) To this view 
Neander appears inclined, from his general re- 
marks prefixed to his history of this doctrine, 
and also Tholuck, from various passages in his 
Commentary on John. For a more full state- 
ment of these modern Sabellian hypotheses, cf. 
Hahn, s. 57, Anm. 3, a. ; and s. 58, Anm. 
2, /. ; Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 68, 
82.— Tr.] 

4. The Arian theory (which, however, we 
have shewn, s. 43, to be in every important re- 
spect older than Arius) has also found advocates 
among protestant theologians, especially those 
of the eighteenth century. Some, especially in 
England, embraced and zealously defended the 
entire system of the high Arians of former times 
— e. g., Whiston, Harwood, and even Wetstein. 
But the system which has met with the most 
approbation is that more refined subordinationism 
taught by Sam. Clark, in his " Scripture Doc- 
trine of the Trinity ;" London, 1712 ; which was 
translated into German, and published with a 
preface by Semler , Leipzig, 1774. Vide Moms, 
p. 69, s. 15, note 1. It had not a few advocates 
among the English, especially of the presbyte- 
rian order, and among the Armenian theolo- 
gians of Holland, as well as among protestants 
elsewhere. The names of Whitby, Benson, 
and (Priestley]) are found on the list of its de- 
fenders in England. This theory is as fol- 
lows: — God is the author of all things. With 
him existed from the beginning (so indefinite 
is the statement of Clark) the Logos and the 
Spirit, both as personal subjects. What their 
real internal nature and connexion is cannot 
indeed be known, but so much the scrip- 
ture reveals, that the Father alone is self-ex- 
istent avioovGio$) and the source and author 
of all the works and agency of the Son and 
Holy Spirit. How the Son received his be- 
ing before the creation of the world cannot be 
determined ; but he has in fact received, com- 
municated to him from the Father, all the com- 
municable divine perfections. He is not to be 



regarded as himself the creator of the world, but 
was employed by the Father as his organ in 
this work. Though subordinate to the Father, 
he yet claims from us divine honour. The 
Holy Spirit derives his origin from the Father, 
is dependent upon the Father and the Son, and 
subordinate to them ; he yet has a nature supe- 
rior to that of angels, and is intermediate, as it 
were, between them and the Son. The subor- 
dination of persons taught in this theory, though 
subtile, is yet so evident that its advocates are 
justly called subordinationists. This mode of 
representation is by no means new, and, as we 
have shewn, s. 42, 43, was common in the se- 
cond and third centuries, long before Arius ap- 
peared. It resulted naturally from the applica- 
tion of the principles of the Platonic philosophy 
to the declarations of the Bible. The hypothe- 
sis of Paul Maty, a Netherlander, in some re- 
spects resembles this. According to him there 
are three persons in the godhead, distinct from 
each other. The first is the entire Deity, who 
created and governs all things, and is called the 
Father. This God, before the creation of the 
world, produced two finite beings, with whom 
he entered into a most intimate connexion, in 
such a way that he with them composes three 
persons, somewhat in the same manner as the 
divine nature in Christ is connected with the 
human. So that the union between the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit may be called a personal 
union. According to this theory, the only union 
which exists between the persons of the Trinity 
is an unio moralis, and the whole representation 
is very similar to that which was adopted by 
the Council at Antioch, 343. But it wants the 
support of scripture, and fails, as much as any 
other theory, of shewing any ground or neces- 
sity for this union of persons. There is nothing 
in reality either illustrated or explained by it. 

Note. — The real source of the Arian hypothe- 
sis is the New Platonic philosophy, to which 
it can be traced much more directly than to the 
holy scriptures. One strong objection to this 
theory is, that it presents to view a plurality of 
unequal gods, thus encourages the worship of 
higher spirits, and so leads on to the most mul- 
tiform superstition. In this point, as well as 
in others, the doctrine of the numerical unity of 
the divine nature has greatly the advantage over 
Arianism. 

5. Still another class of modern sectarians 
remains to be mentioned — the Socinians, some- 
times called Photinians, because they agree in 
the main with Photinus, who flourished in the 
fourth century, and whose scheme was noticed, 
s. 43. The founders of this sect were Lcelius 
Socinus and his nephew Faustus Socinus, both 
of whom flourished in the sixteenth century. 
They maintained that the Nicene theory leads 



DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES. 



161 



tritheism, and on account of the uncommon 
purity in which they supposed themselves to 
hold the doctrine of the divine unity, called 
themselves Unitarians. They brought over con- 
siderable numbers to their doctrine in Poland 
and Transylvania, whom they formed into sepa- 
rate societies ; and since their death their sys- 
tem has prevailed to some extent both in Eng- 
land and Germany. The Socinian theory is 
briefly as follows : — The Father is the only true 
God. Christ is the son of Mary, and a man 
like ourselves, though produced by a miracu- 
lous divine influence. When, therefore, he is 
called God, it cannot be in the same sense in 
which the Father is so called. He was endow- 
ed by God with very unusual gifts and qualifi- 
cations, and after his ascension to heaven was 
promoted above all other created beings, and 
exalted to divine honour. The Holy Ghost is 
not & person, but merely an attribute of God, or 
a mode of divine operation. On the question, 
whether divine worship should be paid to Christ, 
they were not themselves agreed ; and although 
most of them answered in the affirmative, it was 
not without dissent from others of their number. 
With regard to this theory, it may be remarked 
that it stands in direct opposition to the most 
express declarations of the writers of the New 
Testament, and especially of John and Paul, 
much of whose writings cannot be reconciled 
with it without great violence. Nor is it at all 
more capable of being reconciled with sound 
philosophy, which rejects at once the idea of a 
deified man — a deusfactitius. 

6. A new theory on the Trinity was proposed 
by Dr. Urlsperger, in a number of essays, the 
views of which were condensed by himself into 
a work entitled, " Kurzgefasstes System seines 
Vortrags von Gottes Dreyeinigkeit," published 
at Augsburg, where he was then pastor, 1777, 
8vo. His theory bears a general resemblance 
to that of Marcellus of Ancyra, and, like that, 
was condemned by many as favouring Sabel- 
lianism. In this, however, they were manifestly 
unjust; since his object was to unite the three 
principal ancient theories — the Arian, Sabellian, 
and Nicene, making the latter the foundation of 
his system. He endeavoured to effect this com- 
bination by making a distinction between tri- 
nitas essentialis, the internal threefold distinction 
necessarily belonging to the divine nature ; and 
trinitas ceconomica, the three persons revealed to 
us in the work of redemption. But this theory 
derives no support from the scriptures. Vide 
Revision der deutsch. Lit. lte St. for the year 
1776. [Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 
474.] 

Concluding Remarks. 

From all that has now been said, the conclu- 
21 



sion is obvious, that while we are taught by tht 
scriptures to believe in three equal subjects in the 
godhead, who are described as persons, v:e are still 
unable, after all that has been done, by theologians 
and interpreters, to determine in what manner 
or in what sense these three have the divine na- 
ture so in common that there is only one God. 
Vide s. 33. It must therefore be unwise for the 
religious teacher to enlarge in his public instruc- 
tions upon those points where the scriptures are 
silent; and he will do well to confine himself to 
what is clearly taught in the Bible, and has a 
practical influence upon the feelings and con- 
duct; for this doctrine was not given us to em- 
ploy our understanding in speculating upon it, 
but to encourage our hearts by the disclosures 
which it makes of the Divine Being, to incite 
us to a grateful remembrance of the benefits 
which the Father, Son, and Spirit bestow upon 
us, and to lead us to avail ourselves of these 
benefits. Instead, then, of perplexing his hear- 
ers with learned speculations, let the minister 
of the gospel content himself with teaching the 
doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as 
represented in the holy scriptures, describing 
them as three distinct subjects, designating the 
distinction between them by the word person, 
shewing that to three, and to one as much as 
another, divinity and equal divine perfections 
belong, while still there is only one God ; and 
especially insisting upon the benefits which 
these persons confer upon men, the opera 
ad extra which we mentioned in the last sec- 
tion. 

As Christians, we should repose our confi- 
dence in the Father, as the author and giver of 
all good, and especially as the author of salva- 
tion. He bestows this good and these blessings 
upon us («) through the Son, to whom we are 
indebted for making known the way of salvation 
for the remission of sins, on condition of faith 
in his sufferings and death, and for eternal bless- 
edness; and (6) through the Holy Spirit, who 
continues the great work of enlightening and 
saving men, which Christ began, and who, in 
the use of appointed means, carries us forward 
from one stage to another of moral improvement. 
If such is the light in which we regard this dec- 
trine, (and such is the light in which it is pre- 
sented in the scriptures,) we then yield the 
Father, Son, and Spirit the religious worship 
required, and receive the favours which they be- 
stow as divine favours, for which we are indebt- 
ed to none but God himself. Whatever more 
than this it may be necessary for others to know 
with regard to this doctrine, the Christian, as 
such, needs to know nothing more; he can dis- 
pense with the learned subtleties with which 
many are chiefly employed. He does not wish 
to know this truth, merely for its own sake, but 
o2 



162 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



for that higher end for which all religious know- 
ledge should be sought — viz., that he may con- 
form in feeling and practice to the truth which 
is known. When this is the case with Chris- 



tians, and not till then, the great doctrines of re- 
ligion will exert their proper influence upon the 
heart and the life. Vide Morus, p. 70, s. 14; 
and Griesbach, Praktische Dogmatik, s. 62. 



PART II.-THE WORKS OF GOD. 




ARTICLE V. 

OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 

SECTION XLV. 

OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD "WORLD," AND 
OF SYNONYMOUS WORDS. 

HE attentive study and con- 
templation of the visible 
world leads us to the know- 
ledge of the Divine Being 
and of his glorious attri- 
butes. Paul well says, 
Rom. i. 20, that the attri- 
butes of God, which are in themselves 
invisible, are brought within the sight 
and cognizance of man since the world 
has been created. The Bible accord- 
ingly earnestly recommends this source 
of divine knowledge, (vide Ps. viii. 1; xix. 
1 — 6, coll. s. 15;) and it should therefore be 
ranked among the first and most essential 
parts of religious instruction. The practical 
import of this doctrine is exhibited by Morus, 
p. 74, s. 4, 5. The first of these works of God 
is the creation of the world,- and to the consi- 
deration of this we shall now proceed. 

Meaning of the word "World," and of other 
Synonymous Words. 

World, in the strict, philosophical sense, 
means everything extrinsic to God — the animate 
and inanimate, rational and irrational creation. 
Rude and uncultivated nations do not commonly 
have any idea of a world,- certainly they do not 
concern themselves with the question how it 
originated, or perhaps believe that only particu- 
lar parts of it were created. The Caffres have 
no idea of a creation ; they believe that the world 
always existed, and will always continue as it 
is. Vide Le Vaillant, Reise ins Innere Afrika's, 
s. 365, translated by Forster, in his " Magazin 
von merkwiirdigen neuen Reisebesehreibun- 
gen," th. ii. But when the first early inquirers 
into nature attained to the principle that every- 
thing which exists must have a beginning, they 
unconsciously fell into the belief that chance or 
necessity was the cause of all things. Vide Mei- 



ners, Historia doctrinse de vero Deo, p. i. It 
was only by slow degrees that they proceeded 
to those higher inquiries which are indicated in 
s. 46. Their gradual progress in the knowledge 
of this subject is strikingly exhibited in the 
terms which at different periods they employed 
to designate the general notion they had of the 
world ; on these terms, therefore, we shall offer 
a few remarks. 

1. When men first began to reflect upon the 
objects which surrounded them, they naturally 
divided the whole universe into two great por- 
tions — viz., the earth, upon which they dwelt, 
and the heavens, which they saw above therm 
Accordingly, we find that in most of the ancient 
languages the general notion of the universe is 
expressed by the simple and original phrase, the 
heavens and earth. So we find it frequently 
among the Hebrews. Gen. i. 1 ; ii. 1 ; Psalm 
cxv. 15. The nations who inhabited the sea- 
coasts, and beheld the boundless expanse of the 
ocean, frequently divided the universe into' three 
portions — heaven, earth, and sea. So too the He- 
brews, Ps. cxlvi. 6 ; Acts, xvii. 24. This was 
the most ancient mode of describing the universe 
even among the Greeks. Homer conceived of 
the universe as divided into these three por- 
tions — heaven, earth, and sea. Odys. i. 52 — 54, 
coll. II. xv. 139, seq. This ancient phraseology 
is the ground of Aristotle's definition of the 
world, Kotfuoj Irsii 6v<5tr t f^a i% ovpavov xal yjjj, 
xal tW sv "tovtois Ttept,£%oiAEvu)v tyvtisuiv, De Mun- 
do, c. 1. 

2. But in process of time other terms were 
introduced into the various languages, by which 
this idea was expressed more briefly and dis- 
tinctly. These terms were derived from various 

I sources ; most of them from certain obvious at- 
tributes, whether perfections or imperfections, 
of the world. The following may be here stated 
as those best known ;— ■ 

(a) The Hebrews, Chaldaeans, and Syrians 
called the world aSiy, D-pS-p, to which correspond 
the aiu>v, aiuvt$, of the Grecian Jews. This 
term was derived from the duration and age of 
the world. Cf. s. 20, III. No passage, how- 
ever, occurs in the books written before the Ba- 
bylonian exile, in which these words are clearly 
used in the sense now ascribed to them. In 
the earlier books they stand simply for the ideas 



WORKS OF GOD. 



163 



of continuance, duration, age. The word nSn, 
which occurs in Ps. xlix. 2, is of similar origin, 
being - derived from nSn ; although in this pas- 
sage it rather means the earth than the world. 
Vide Anmerk zu Ps. xvii, 14, The word S^n, 
on the contrary, which occurs, Isaiah, xxxviii. 
11, in the sense of world, or earth, is of exactly 
an opposite origin, the mutability and perishable- 
ness of the world being the foundation of this 
appellation, although some consider the reading 
incorrect, and wish to substitute nSn. Corres- 
ponding with the former appellation of the 
world, taken from its long duration, is the Ger- 
man word Welt, or, as it is always written in 
the old books, Werelt, and in the Danish Weret, 
which is derived from the word wdhren, to con- 
tinue, endure ,- though, according to others, it is 
abbreviated from Werld, and so derived from 
werlen, to revolve, turn round, the earth being 
considered as an oval surface. On the latter 
supposition this term would resemble the Latin 
orbis terrarum, and the English world. 

(b) From the beautiful and wonderful order 
and arrangement of all parts of the world, the 
Greeks called it 6 xors^o^, and the Latins, mun- 
dus, which is a mere translation of the Greek 
xovfios. This term, however, does not occur in 
Homer ; nor indeed is the notion of world ever 
expressed by a single word either in Homer or 
Moses. The word xoipos was employed by the 
oldest Grecian writers, to denote merely the 
starry firmament, from its beauty and splendour. 
And in a similar limitation the word mundus 
was frequently used by Lucretius and other 
Latin poets, and even by Seneca. Afterwards 
the Sophists-! — i. e., the learned, or the philoso- 
phers, began to apply this word to the whole 
universe, as was the case with Socrates as cited 
by Xenophon. When, therefore, Xenophon 
employs the term in this sense, he is careful to 
say, o V7tb t?wv tfotyMtav xaXovuzvos xoaiAog. After 
his time it gradually passed in this sense into 
the language of common life. Pythagoras is 
usually esteemed the first who employed the 
term x6<sjxqs to denote the whole universe. Cf. 
Scr. var. arg. p. 532, seq. This word was 
afterwards used in various other significations 
which occur in the writings of the Grecian Jews, 
and in the New Testament. Among these is 
the sense of the earth, olxovfiivq, Ssri; and also of 
particular provinces of it — a meaning which be- 
longs to the words just mentioned, and to the 
Latin orbis terrarum. Kotsuos was also used in 
the sense of the world of men, the whole human 
race, and then, the wicked as a whole, the heathen. 
By Christian writers it was sometimes used to 
denote the Jewish world. Finally, xoc^oj was 
used to denote visible, perishable, earthly things 
and possessions, (res terremc, externse, ad corpus 
periinentes,) in opposition to things invisible, 
heavenly, and divine. 



(c) Metaphorical appellations of the w T orld, 
like those of the Greeks and Latins, occur also 
among the Jews. The Hebrews called the stars 
the host, N2v, host of heaven, host of God, Judges, 
v. 20. But afterwards they called all created 
things the host of God, which they represented 
as standing in his service and accomplishing his 
will, Ps. ciii. 21, coll. ver. 20, 22 ; also Gen. ii. 
1. The heavens and the earth, and all the host of 
them, DS2X Ssi. Hence the supreme God is call- 
ed nitos wpp, Lord of hosts — i. e., of the world. 
Cf. s. 17. This term resembles the xo<jfio$ of 
the Greeks, in that it was originally applied to 
the heavens only, and afterwards so extended 
in its signification as to embrace all created ob- 
jects. 

(d) After the belief in spirits and demons be- 
came common among the Israelites, the phrase 
ta opa-ta xal dopo-fa was employed to designate 
the sum of created objects, and occurs in this 
sense, Col. i. 16. 

The Greek term, th rcav (universum), is the 
appropriate philosophical appellation of the 
world, and does not occur in the New Testa- 
ment, except indeed in the plural, to, ridvta. 

SECTION XL VI. 

WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE CREA- 
TION OF THE WORLD ; THE PROOF OF A CREA- 
TION ; THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT WAS 
MADE ; WITH A SKETCH OF THE VARIOUS OPI- 
NIONS ENTERTAINED ON THIS SUBJECT. 

I. Definition and Proof of the Creation of the World. 

By creation we understand that act of God by 
which he gave existence to the world, or to things 
exterior to himself; or, as it is commonly ex- 
pressed, by which he made the world out of no- 
thing; which last definition will be considered 
at length in No. II. The proof of the position 
that the world derives its existence from God, 
is made out from reason, by the very same argu- 
ments by which we prove from nature that there 
is a God; respecting which, vide s. 15. For 
from the very reason that the world could not 
produce itself, we conclude that there must be a 
God who produced it. Vide ubi supra. We 
proceed, therefore, to the more important inquiry 
respecting — 

II. The Material from which the World ivas formed, 
and the Various Opinions entertained upon this 
subject. 

1. Philosophers have always allowed the ex- 
istence of a first material, since otherwise they 
would be compelled to admit a progrcssio cans- 
sarum in infinitum, which is not supposable. 
But, 

2. The ancients found great difficulty in ex- 
plaining the origin of this first material. The 



164 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Grecian philosophers and other ancient writers 
insisted upon the principle, ex nihilo nihil fit ; 
and could not admit, therefore, that it was even 
possible for God to create the world out of no- 
thing. Accordingly, they believed almost uni- 
versally in two eternal, original principles— viz., 
God, and self-existent matter, neither of which is 
the ground of the other. The former they sup- 
posed to be a rational and thinking principle, 
and the author of all good ; the other, irrational 
and unintelligent, and the author of all evil. 

As to the question, how the world arose from 
this pre-existing matter, the opinions of the an- 
cients were very various. Plato taught, that 
God, of his own will, united himself with matter, 
and produced the world from it; so that he could 
say that the world was not eternal and uncre- 
ated, although matter might be so. Aristotle, 
the peripatetic, and Zeno, the stoic, taught that 
this union of God with the world was necessary ,- 
and accordingly they affirmed the eternity of the 
world, (Cic. Qu. Acad. iv. 38,) although they 
differed from one another in explaining the man- 
ner of this connexion. Epicurus separated God 
entirely from the world, and taught that matter 
consists of innumerable small atoms, which from 
eternity had floated about, like dust on the water 
or in the air, until at last they assumed the form 
of the present world. This ancient opinion of 
the eternity of matter found an advocate in mo- 
dern times in Bayle, who was of opinion that it 
resulted necessarily from the principle, which 
cannot be disputed, ex nihilo nihil fit. But as 
we have before shewn, s. 15, II., the doctrine, 
that matter is eternal and necessary, is the foun- 
dation of a theoretical atheism. 

If we follow the principles of philosophy in 
its present improved state, or rather, if we fol- 
low the Bible, to which alone our modern phi- 
losophy is indebted for its improvement, we 
shall be unable to admit the validity of the 
maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, in opposition to the 
doctrine of creation from nothing. This maxim 
is indeed incontrovertibly true when applied to 
the causa materialis ; for there must be in every 
case a ground — a prima materia — from which 
whatever exists proceeds. But it is not true if 
understood of the causa efficiens, to which omni- 
potence is ascribed. Consequently, if our theory 
respecting God- and his attributes is well esta- 
blished, this principle applied to him as the effi- 
cient cause must be regarded as false; for if God 
is omnipotent, he can of course from nothing 
produce something, or bring into existence what 
did not exist before. If he could not do this, he 
would not be omnipotent. Moreover, if it is true 
that matter is not necessary, (vide s. 15,) it can- 
not exist of itself, but must derive its existence 
from God, or depend upon God, who at first cre- 
ated it out of nothing. 

The greatest philosophers of antiquity appear 



therefore to have stopped short of the truth, and 
to have been inconsistent, when they worshipped 
God as the creator of the world, indeed, but not 
of matter. They admitted merely a creaiio me- 
diata, ex prseexistente materia, and not imme- 
diata — i. e., they did not believe in the produc- 
tion of matter itself from nothing. God, with 
them, was merely the builder, and not the cre- 
ator, of the world. 

The ancient Greeks, as we perceive, reasoned 
upon this subject from principles entirely dif- 
ferent from those which we at present adopt; 
and not one of them ever advanced to the dis- 
tinct conception of a creation from nothing. It 
is no valid objection, however, against the posi- 
tion that God made matter from nothing, that 
we cannot conceive how what is possible should 
become real, through the mere will of God; for 
this is a matter of which we have never had any 
experience ; and yet experience assures us of the 
reality of many events, the manner of whose 
occurrence is incomprehensible to the human 
understanding. How much less, then, are we 
capable of judging respecting things of which 
we have had and can have no experience ! 

The truth, that everything which exists was 
created by God from nothing, is the uniform 
doctrine of the Bible — of the old Jewish pro- 
phets, and of the C hristian teachers. In respect 
to this important doctrine of religion they were 
far in advance of the other cultivated nations of 
antiquity, though confessedly behind them in 
general intellectual improvement. This sublime 
truth, which appears to us so simple, since we 
have been taught it, was unknown to the an- 
cient philosophers, long after it had been taught 
by the writers of the neglected Jewish scrip- 
tures ; and indeed it is from these that our mo- 
dern philosophers have derived, however un- 
willingly, all their better views on this subject. 
To the sacred writers we owe the doctrine that 
God gave existence to what was not. They do 
not, indeed, dwell so much on the theoretical 
ground of this truth as notice its practical con- 
sequences; they were, however, the first who 
established the position itself. Philosophers 
have only reinvestigated the doctrine which 
they established, and developed the reasons of 
the truth which they taught. 

But it may be asked — Is then the doctrine de 
creatione ex nihilo really so important] is it not 
rather a doctrine interesting only to speculative 
philosophers ? To these questions we must 
answer, that this doctrine is, on the contrary, 
one of great practical importance, which is the 
reason why the holy scriptures so frequently 
and urgently inculcate it. For (a) if matter 
was created by God from nothing, it follows 
that he must fully understand it in all its parts ; 
he must have wisely assigned to everything 
its definite position in space, and have pre- 



WORKS OF GOD. 



163 



served it as he originally created it. But in 
case he were not the creator, but only the 
foimer of the world, according to the opinion 
of the ancients, it would then be necessary 
for him to acquaint himself with this mat- 
ter, which he himself had not produced, and 
which was foreign to his own nature. But we 
may confidently affirm, that he never would have 
become acquainted with matter if he had not 
himself made it, (as even Malebranche con- 
cludes;) because he derives all his knowledge 
from himself alone, and nothing exterior to him- 
self can either add to his information, or in any 
way exert an influenee upon him. (6) A mere 
builder may leave his building, when it is once 
completed, and concern himself no further about 
it, except perhaps in certain extraordinary cases. 
And considering that almost all of the philoso- 
phers and religious teachers of the heathen world 
proceeded upon the notion that God was the 
former only, or builder of the world, and not its 
creator, it is not strange that their ideas of Pro- 
vidence were no more pure and consonant to the 
divine nature. They generally believed, either 
that God concerned himself not at all with the 
world, or, at least, that his providence did not 
extend to small and minute affairs. When once 
Phaeton had misguided the chariot of the sun, 
Jupiter indeed found it necessary to see whether 
the firmament had been shattered ; but except in 
such extraordinary cases, he remained uncon- 
cerned with the affairs of the world, and every- 
thing here below was supposed to be left to go 
on, like a clock, when it has been once wound 
up. Thus it appears, that the belief that the world 
was created from nothing has an important in- 
fluence on the doctrine concerning providence, 
and so is of great practical consequence. This 
belief alone excites in us ideas of providence 
which do honour to God , and are consonant with 
his character. If God is the creator of the world, 
we may be sure that he not only understands 
and provides for the whole, but that his know- 
ledge and providence extend to every particular 
part of the universe, though ever so small. The 
schoolmen, with entire truth, called the pre- 
servation of the world a continued creation. And 
the Bible frequently argues from the fact that 
God created all things in the universe, that he 
must be perfectly acquainted with them, and that 
they depend for their preservation solely upon 
his will. Vide Psa. xciv. 8—1 1 ; cxxxix. Cf. 
Kastner, Ueber die Lehre der Schopfung aus 
Nichts, und deren praktische Wichtigkeit; 
Gdttingen, 1770, 4to. Heydenreich, Progr. 
Nurn ratio humana sua vi, et sponte contingere 
possit notionem creationisexnihilo? Lips. 1790. 
He shews that this is the only reasonable opi- 
nion respecting the origin of the world. [Re- 
specting the practical importance cf this doc- 
trine, cf. also, Neander, All gem. Gesch. der 



christ. Rel., b. i. abth. 3, s. 974. Also Hahn, 
Lehrbuch, s. 271.] 

Note. — The phrase itself, to create from no- 
thing, does not occur in the canonical books of 
the Bible, although the idea is scriptural. The 
phrase is taken from 2 Mace. vii. 28 ; in the 
Vulgate, ex nihilo fecit Deus ccelum et terrain, in 
the Greek, If ovx ovtctv. The phrase to. uyj 
fyaivouzva, which occurs, Heb. xi. 3, is of the 
same import. Morus (p. 72) and some others 
have rejected the phrase, creation from nothing, 
because it seems to imply that nothing is the 
material from which the world was made. But 
this subtil ty is unnecessary, since the same lan- 
guage is used in other cases, and is never mis- 
understood. When we say, for example, there 
is nothing in the chest, there is nobody there, we 
do not mean to imply that there is in the first 
case a material substance, and, in the second, 
a person existing in the places intended. 

III. The Nature of the First Material. 

The idea of chaos resulted very naturally from 
the opinion of the ancient Greeks that matter is 
eternal and uncreated, and that God merely ar- 
ranged and combined the materials which he, as 
the great architect, found furnished for his use. 
The word %a6$ is derived by some from ^a'u, 
Mo, vacuus sum,- by others from ^'o./un^o, be- 
cause they imagine chaos to be something mov- 
able and fluid. The corresponding Latin word is 
silva, which denotes what is confused, unar- 
ranged, and then, unorganized material from 
which anything is made; as, silva return, sen- 
tentiarum, Cicero; silva medicinse, Pliny. The 
Greek word which is used by Plato and other 
philosophers is, xrk-q, which signifies both silva 
and materia. The ancients imagined that these 
primordia — the unorganized elements of things 
— were of the nature of a thin air, or a subtle 
ether, fluid and movable, without order or con- 
nexion, rudis indigestaque moles. \ ide Ovid, 
Met. i. 7, seq. But the whole conception of 
chaos is rather poetical than philosophical — the 
progeny of fancy, and not of reason. The phi- 
losopher can see no satisfactory reason for be- 
lieving that disorder must have preceded the 
present system. The poet, however, fancies a 
state before the world was formed, like that 
which would appear if all the objects of the pre- 
sent world were torn to pieces, dissolved, and 
thrown together ; and this state he calls chaos, 
and supposes that there the elements of things 
conflicted with one another, until the Deity at 
length interposed to end the strife. The Greeks 
now supposed that the universe proceeded from 
this state, as from a fluid and fermenting mass; 
the Hebrews, on the contrary, represented the 
origin of the world under the image of a /.. 
ing, of the materials of which, as well as of the 
structure itself, God was the author. Ct. the 



106 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Essay of Paulus, Das Chaos eine Dichtung, 
nieht ein Gesetz fiir physische Kosmologie 
(Kosmogenie 1 ?), in his " Memorabilien," No. 
III. Stiick 4; Leipzig, 1793, 8vo. Some have 
thought they perceived a description of chaos in 
the t\y\ irin of the Mosaic account of the crea- 
tion, Gen. i. 2. But Moses says this merely of 
the earth. After God had created the universe, 
(the heavens and the earth,) the earth was still 
waste, empty, and unfinished. There is nothing 
in the Mosaic account to justify the idea of the 
Grecian chaos, in which everything in the uni- 
verse lay together in a promiscuous and disor- 
derly mass, of which God was no more the cre- 
ator than the architect is of the pile of stones 
from which he forms his edifice. 

The history of the opinions of ancient and 
modern philosophers respecting the nature of the 
first material of the universe belongs appropri- 
ately to the history of philosophy. The follow- 
ing remarks must suffice for this place. 

We cannot form any distinct notion of the ele- 
ments, and of the primitive, essential, and con- 
stituent parts of the bodies which now exist, 
since our senses are not adapted to take cog- 
nizance of them. That such elements actually 
exist, however, there is no doubt; and that each 
of these particles has properties which distin- 
guish it from every other — its peculiar use, size, 
shape, &c. — is equally clear ; for otherwise there 
could be no distinction, variety, or alteration 
in the world. Pythagoras proceeded on this 
ground, when he taught that the /xovds was the 
origin and ground of all things. For as num- 
bers consist of their units, as constituent parts, 
so he supposed the world was composed of many 
such units or monades. This thought led Leib- 
nitz to his theory of monades. According to 
this theory, these monades are what God ori- 
ginally produced from nothing; and all the va- 
riety of things, the world itself, has arisen from 
their original difference, and their various com- 
binations. This theory, therefore, clearly in- 
volves the doctrine of a creation from nothing. 
But what is the nature, and what are the quali- 
ties of these first productions of creative power, 
we cannot know, because our senses do notreach 
so far. And when the atomic system, or mona- 
dology, is extended to inquiries like these, it 
becomes, as Kant has well shewn, merely hy- 
pothetical, and without any practical interest. 
The science which has for its object the powers 
and forces which act in the world — dynamics, as 
it is called — is more important to us than the 
science which relates merely to the minute 
atoms or particles of which bodies are composed, 
whether they are called monades or any other 
name. 

In this whole subject we must guard against 
the supposition of any successive acts in God ; 
as if he had first created the materials, and then 



formed them by degrees into the bodies which 
constitute the universe, proceeding in his work 
step by step, like a human artist. Vide s. 20, 
respecting the immutability of God. In God, 
thought and execution are one and the same act. 
He speaks, and it is done, Ps. xxxiii. 9. He says, 
Let there be light, and there is light, Gen. i. 3. 
Nor is any alteration produced in God by the 
creation of the world. He designed from eter- 
nity that the world should exist at a certain time. 
Morus expresses this differently, p. 72, s. 2. 
Cf. on this particular point, and on the general 
subject, Ziegler, Kritik iiber den Artikel von 
der Schopfung, nach unserer gewohnlichen 
Dogmatik, in Henke's " Magazin fur Religions- 
philosophic," b. ii. st. 1, Abhandl. 1. 

SECTION XLVII. 

THE DOCTRINE AND LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLICAL 
WRITERS RESPECTING THE CREATION IN GENE- 
RAL, AND HOW THEY ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD. 

I. Respecting the Eternity of Matter. 

The holy scriptures constantly describe God 
as the author and creator of the world ; not mere- 
ly of the form which it now has, as the ancient 
philosophers supposed, but of the materials 
themselves from which it is formed. With this 
fundamental principle Moses begins his geo- 
gony, Gen. i. 1. We find this mentioned as the 
principal characteristic of the true God, through- 
out the Bible ; Is. xlii. 5 ; Ps. cxv. 3, seq. ; Acts, 
xvii. 24; and the other passages cited s. 14, ad 
finem, and Morus, p. 72, s. 2, note 1. It may 
be considered as an established point, that the 
eternity of the world is nowhere affirmed in the 
Bible. Vide Ps. xc. 2; cii. 26, coll. s. 20. 

But notwithstanding this, there have always 
been philosophers and theologians, even among 
Christians, who have advocated the eternity of 
the world, or at least of matter. The Platonists 
among the first Christians very naturally fol- 
lowed Plato, who believed in the eternity of 
matter, though not of the world. Vide s. 46. 
Thus Justin the Martyr affirmed, that God 
formed the world from an eternal, misshapen, 
unorganized material, Apol. i. 39; though in 
other parts of his writings he appears to derive 
matter originally from GJod as its author, and 
thus to differ from Plato. 

The schoolmen, who followed Aristotle, and 
wished to defend his opinion respecting the eter- 
nity of the world (s. 46), taught that we might 
say, God had created the world from eternity — > 
a statement in which its dependence upon God 
would be vindicated at the same time that its 
eternity was maintained. This opinion was 
expressed by Boethius as early as the fifth and 
beginning of the sixth century. Others, how- 
ever, only wished that the possibility of this sup- 



WORKS OF GOD. 



167 



position should be granted. The schoolmen 
made this distinction : — Beus est ^ternus ; 
mundus est ab jeterno, sc. productus d, Deo. 
For God, they said, had the power to act from 
eternity, and we can see no reason why he 
should not have exerted this power. 

Some protestant theologians of modern times 
have also asserted the possibility of the eternity 
of the world. Some have thought it to be a con- 
tradiction to speak of an eternal God who is not 
an eternal creator. Even Wolf, in his metaphy- 
sics, affirmed that it could not be shewn from 
philosophy that the world and the human race 
have had a beginning. But even if the world 
had been produced from eternity by God, it 
would not therefore be eternal in the same sense 
as God is. It would only have existed through 
infinite time, while God is anterior to, and inde- 
pendent of time. It would perhaps be better to 
say, that eternity (d parte ante) is a necessary 
attribute of God, but not of the world : the world 
is eternal because God willed its existence from 
the first ; and not from an internal necessity of 
its existence, as there is of the existence of God. 
The followers of Wolf, Ribbow, and others, 
held the same opinion. Others contend, that 
this opinion does violence to the laws of the 
human understanding. If the word eternity is 
understood in the proper sense, in which it ex- 
cludes time (s. 20), it is hard to see how it can 
be said, with propriety, that the world was cre- 
ated by God from eternity. For as soon as we 
suppose that the world was created, we neces- 
sarily admit that it had a beginning; and if it 
had a beginning, it exists in time ; and time ex- 
cludes eternity. We may imagine, if we please, 
an eternal series of created things ; but such a 
series can have no real existence ; for a series 
consisting of things which have a beginning 
cannot be without a beginning. 

But the reason why we never obtain satisfac- 
tion, after all our philosophizing, upon this sub- 
ject, and why we find so many difficulties attend- 
ing any supposition we may make respecting 
the eternity of the world, is this, that the whole 
subject far transcends our limited capacities. The 
forms of time and space, which are inherent in 
our mental constitution, so limit our minds that 
we cannot conceive of anything as existing 
without them. Vide s. 20, I. Time takes its 
origin from the succession of one thing after 
another. It is a notion of finite beings, who can 
think of only one thing at a time, in whom, 
therefore, one idea must succeed another ; and 
is not a quality of external objects. Vide Io. 
Krnesti Schubert, Diss, de impossibilitate mun- 
di aeterni ; Jena?, 1741. Kant, Kritik der reinen 
Vernunft. When Augustine was asked the 
question what God had done before the creation 
of the world 1 he replied, Nescio, quod nescio. 



The simple doctrine of the Bible is, that God 
had an eternal purpose to make the world ; it 
does not teach us that he did create it from eter- 
nity ; but rather the contrary. Vide the texts 
cited in Morus, p. 72, s. 2, Note 1. 

IT. Respecting Creation from Nothing. 

1. The importance of the doctrine of creation 
from nothing, its philosophical proof, its scrip- 
tural ground, &c, have been already exhibited, 
s. 46. It only remains to cite the most import- 
ant texts relating to this subject. But before 
proceeding to do this, it is important to repeat 
the remark, that the Bible makes no mention of 
a chaos, in the sense of the Grecian fabulists 
and philosophers. Moses, in his first book, and 
the other sacred writers, always exhibit the 
simple, great idea, that God by his mere will 
brought into existence the world, which did not 
before exist — i. e., in other words, that he cre- 
ated it from nothing ; that he willed that what 
was not should be, and it was ; Morus, p. 72. 
So Paul says, Heb. xi. 3, By faith in God (i. e., 
his declaration, assurance in the scriptures'! we 
are certain that the world (ouwvas) was created 
(xatqptio^ai, ps), by the decree or will Qr^uatt) 
of God,- so that what we see (ycuvouzva and j3*.£- 
7iou£va, what appears or exists,) was made out 
of nothing, (ta u'q tyacvoueva.) The phrase ta 
U7j tyaivo/xsva is here synonymous with ta ovx 
bvta, which occurs in 2 Mace. vii. 28, God made 
heaven and earth, i| ovx bvtcov. Here too the 
text, Rom. iv. 17, is cited : Abraham trusted in 
God tov <std07toiovvtos tov$ T'sxpovs y.o.1 x a"kovv- 
iq$ (creantis) ra urj bvta wj bvta. The phrase- 
ology in this text is, indeed, derived from that 
used to describe the creation from nothing; but 
it is here figuratively applied to the numerous 
posterity of Abraham, which did not yet exist, 
and of which there was no probability; but 
which was afterwards brought into being. The 
word xoXilv here answers to the word Nip, Isa. 
xli. 4 ; xliv. 7, and signifies creare, producere. 
So Philo says, ta ur; bvta exd%s6sv ti$ to thai. 
Vide Carpzov on Heb. xi. 3. The doctrine that 
God made the world from nothing, is also im- 
plied, where it is said that he created the world 
by his ivord, his decree, or by the breath which 
proceeded out of his mouth. Vide Ps. xxxiii. 
6, 9. Gen. i. " He spake, and it was done," 
&c. Cf. s. 34, No. 5. It is said in Rev. iv. 11. 
6v IxtLGat; Ttuvta, xal 8ta to ^sXtj/llo, ( - Ji03, 
Daniel, viii. 4; xi. 3, 16) gov sittk "Thou hast 
made all things, and they depend for existence 
upon thy will." 

2. Nothing can be determined from the Bible 
respecting the particular manner in which God, 
by his mere will, created the world from no- 
thing; and we are unable even to form any con- 
ception of the subject, as we have nothing ana- 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



logous to wmch we can compare it. The New 
Testament usually ascribes the work of creation 
to the Father ; and God is called Father, (Ila-r^p 
Ttdvifaiv,) so far as he is creator and preserver of 
all things. Theologians say, Creatio est opus 
Dei ad extra, quod Patri adscribitur appropria- 
ted sive terminative, Moms, p. 72, note 1. 

But creation is also ascribed to the Son, or to 
the Aoyoj (vide s. 38, I. 2) ; as John, i. 3, Udvta 
§&' avtov (AoyoiJ, ver. 1, 2) iysvsto, x. t. %. ; and 
again, in ver. 10, 6 xoguoc, 5c.' avtov iyivsto. It 
is the object of this passage to describe the rela- 
tion of the Logos to the world and created things. 
The particle Sla with the genitive frequently, in- 
deed, denotes merely the causa instrumentalis ; 
(so Luke, i. 70;) but it also denotes the causa 
efficiens,- as Rom. i. 5, and 1 Cor. i. 9, (0f6>, bo 
ov txhyftri-tz,) and Hebrews, ii. 10, (©soj 6V ov 
*d 7tdvta.) That it is used in this sense here 
may be shewn from the analogy of other pas- 
sages — e. g., Col. i. 15—17, and Heb. ii., where 
it is expressly said that everything in the uni- 
verse was created by the Son. Cf. the texts 
cited in s. 38. But some theologians have en- 
deavoured to explain all these passages as figu- 
rative, and as exhibiting a mere personification 
of the divine understanding, and of its plan exe- 
cuted in the creation; somewhat as Wisdom is 
said in Prov. viii. to have assisted God in the 
creation, and to have been the instrument by 
which he made the world. Vide s. 37, and s. 
41, II. This interpretation is embraced by those 
who favour the Sabellian theory ; but certainly 
it is not scriptural. The most just, scriptural, 
and at the same time simple view, is perhaps 
the following. Since the New Testament 
makes the Son of God equal (Jaa) with the Fa- 
ther, it designs to teach in all texts of this kind 
that he stands in the very same relation to the 
world, and to all created objects, as the Father 
does, and that whatever is said of the Father is 
true also of the Son. Hence theologians have 
the canon, Opera Dei ad extra (attributiva) sunt 
tribus personis communia ; intending thereby to 
intimate their equality with one another. Vide 
s. 43, ad flnem. Those who are inclined to 
Arianism have often referred, in behalf of their 
hypothesis, to Heb. i. 2, where it is said, " God 
appointed his Son Lord (x%r[povbiiov} over all, 
6V ov xal tov$ aluivag irtoirjrssv '. the meaning of 
which they suppose to be summed up, and ex- 
pressed in ver. 3, " He (the Son) upholds all 
things (tyspcov fa 7tdvta) by his power, (^-uaft 
hvvdfitai.y The phrase, the Father created 
the world through the Son, occurs only this once 
in the New Testament, for which reason Dr. 
Griesbach advises to alter the reading, and to 
substitute Sioto xal for 6V ov xal, Progr. De 
mundo a Deo Patre condito per Filium; Jense, 
1731. But no sufficient reason can be given for 



this alteration; and, as theologians have justly 
remarked, it does not follow from this phrase- 
ology that the Son is less than the Father, as the 
Arians and Subordinationists (e. g., Dr. Clark) 
have concluded. For the person through whom 
I accomplish anything, so far from being neces- 
sarily inferior to myself, may be equal or even 
greater. I may, for example, secure a favour to 
any one from the king, through the influence of 
the minister. Some of the old theologians at- 
tempted to prove from Gen. i. 2, that a share in 
creation was expressly ascribed to the Holy 
Spirit, considered as a person. But it is at least 
doubtful whether in this text the person of the 
Holy Spirit is spoken of. Ps. xxxiii. 6 has no 
relation to this subject. Vide s. 50, I. 

3. The following are the principal words and 
phrases used in the Bible in respect to the crea- 
tion of the world, and of the earth. 

(a) &03, to create, produce, Gen. i. 1, et passim. 
This word, however, by itself, does not signify 
to create from nothing. It frequently denotes 
the formation of a thing from a pre-existing ma- 
terial, and answers to xrl^siv. So in Gen. i. 
27, it is used in relation to the formation of man 
from the earth ; and hence to denote his being 
born and begotten ; so Ps. civ. 30. It often 
signifies, too, parare, condere, facere, redder e ; 
so Is. xliii. 7; Num. xvi. 30, seq. Cf. s. 
48, I. 

(b) All the words which signify to make, to 
prepare, to form ; as rvL*7, (hence r\tyv, a tuork, 
created thing, rtoirjpa, tpyov,) "iX" 1 , to form ; pp, 
xataptl^stv, to prepare, to arrange, Ps. viii. 4 ; 
xxxviii. 18. The corresponding verb and the 
derivate substantive have the same meaning in 
Arabic. 

(c) All the words which relate to building, to 
the erecting of the superstructure, or the laying 
of the foundation. -iep, $sunht6u>, to found, to 
establish, is applied, particularly in poetic lan- 
guage, to the creation of the earth ; Ps. cii. 26. 
Hence the Hellenistic phrase xata^o7.r ( xoauov, 
John, xvii. 24, coll. ver. 5, and Eph. i. 4. The 
Hebrews considered the earth as being in the 
centre of the universe, and represented the hea- 
vens as a tent spread over it, according to their 
natural appearance ; and to these popular no- 
tions the sacred writers everywhere conform; 
and so because the earth is firm, and undeviating 
in its course, they represented it as established 
upon pillars ; Ps. civ. 5. m3, to build, &c. ; but 
it also signifies to propagate the race, to acquire 
posterity, Gen. xvi. 2; hence j2, son, (the builder 
of the family.) 

(d) The words which signify to say, speak, 
call, (call forth,) command,- as, npx, X"ip, respect- 
ing which, cf. No. I. These are the words 
more commonly employed to designate creation 
from nothing. 



WORKS OF GOD. 



169 



SECTION XL VIII. 

THK WORK OF CREATION TWOFOLD; DIFFERENT 
CLASSES OF CREATURES; OUR KNOWLEDGE OF 
THEM ; END OF GOD IN THE CREATION OF THE 
WORLD ; THE BEST WORLD. 

I. The Work of Creation twofold. 

Creation is divided into prima or immediata, 
and secunda or mediata. The immediate creation 
is that which took place when God first gave 
existence to all this variety of things, when be- 
fore there was nothing. The mediate creation is 
that which is seen since the original creation was 
completed, in the production of plants, the ge- 
neration of animate creatures, and the whole na- 
tural propagation of the various kinds of beings. 
God works, since the creation is completed, not 
immediately, but generally, by means of the 
powers of nature which he himself has bestowed 
and regulated. It is not uncommon to speak of 
God's having left the world to the powers of na- 
ture. But such phraseology should be carefully 
avoided in religious instruction. It seems to 
remove (jod to a distance from us, and very na- 
turally suggests the idea that he has given up 
the world, and concerns himself no more about 
it. More injury is done by such expressions, 
especially in an age that forgets God, than is 
ever supposed. Instead of such language it 
would be better, therefore, to say, God works by 
means of nature, or, by means of the powers which 
he has bestowed upon nature, or with which he has 
furnished his creatures. Even Moses says ex- 
pressly, Gen. i. 22, 28, that God gave his crea- 
tures the ability to preserve and propagate their 
own kind. Still, however, all creatures, both 
animate and inanimate, which are thus mediately 11 
produced, are called, with perfect truth, crea- 
tures of God, considering that God first esta- 
blished and upholds this natural constitution by 
means of which they come into being. Vide 
Job, x. 8; xxxiii. 4; Ps. cxxxix. 13 — 16. The 
word x-g and the derivative noun are used in 
both of these senses; in the first, that of imme- 
diate creation, Gen. i. 1, 27; ii. 2, seq. ; Is. xlv. 
18; Ps. cxlviii. 5; in the second, that of me- 
diate creation, Psalm civ. 30, "They (men) are 
created''' 1 — i. e., born. Hence xna and nSi are 
interchanged as synonymous : as, n-oj op, popu- 
lus creandus, Psalm cii. 19; and -6u ay, populus 
nascendus, Psalm xxii. 32. Hence to create, 
signifies metaphorically, in the scriptures, to re- 
new, to found, to be the author of anything ; Is. 
xlviii. 7 ; Ps. Ii. 12. The same is true of xiC&iv 
and ictlm, Eph. ii. 10, 15; iii. 9 ; and also of 
the Latin creare ; as, " Romulus creator urbis." 
" Terra creavit genus humanum," Lucretius. 
Creare regem, magistratum, &c. 

Every good, therefore, which we derive from 
any of the creatures of God, is truly a gift and 
22 



favour of God himself, who gave to his creatures 
all their various powers with the intention of 
making them useful to others. Cf. Hos. ii. 21, 
seq. ; Matt. vi. 25, seq. ; Acts, xvii. 25, seq. 
Consequently we are under obligation to be 
thankful to God himself for these advantages, 
which we derive from his creatures. Vide 
Psalm civ. 1, seq., and other texts of the New 
Testament. 

II. Different Classes of Creatures. 

The kingdom of God is so vast, and compre- 
hends such an innumerable host, (to use a scrip- 
tural term,) that we are able to survey but a 
very small portion of it at once, and are wholly 
inadequate suitably to estimate the perfection, 
beauty, and harmony of the whole. What, 
then, we cannot survey at once, we must exa- 
mine in separate portions, and by this partition 
we may relieve the weakness of our under- 
standing; and this course is both reasonable ia 
itself and according to the example of scripture. 

The ancient Hebrews divided the universe 
into heaven, earth, and sea, (s. 45,) which are 
properly styled the provinces (nicpiD) of the 
kingdom of God by the author of Psalm ciii. ; 
and this is the division according to which the 
ancient Hebrew prophets always proceed in the 
classification of the works of God. Vide 
Psalm civ., cxlviii. The former of these 
Psalms is an admirable ode on the creation and 
the wise constitution of the world. The various 
objects in heaven, on the earth, and in the 
waters, are there mentioned in their natural 
order; their dependence on God is shewn, and 
their uses, and the ends for which they were 
made, is described. The sublime descriptions 
in Job, xxxvi. and xli., may be cited in this 
connexion. Cf. Ps. cxlv. cxlvii. 

The Bible always gives the preference to ani- 
mate creatures (creatures who have breath,- in 
whom is the breath of life, as Moses says) over 
the inanimate creation. It justly considers 
them as the more noble, exalted, and perfect 
work of God ; and it assigns to man a pre-emi- 
nence among the creatures which belong to the 
earth. Vide Gen. i. 26, seq., and Ps. viii., 
which treat of the dignity of man, and of his 
superiority to the other creatures of the earth, es- 
pecially ver. 4 — 9. This passage may be consi- 
dered as a comment upon Gen. i. 26, seq. 
There it is said that God made man in his own 
image, and placed him over the rest of the 
creation. This pre-eminence consists in the ra- 
tional and moral nature, and the freedom of will 
which man alone possesses among all the crea- 
tures by which he is surrounded. 

Respecting the division of creatures into 
visible (corporeal), and invisible, (immaterial, 
spiritual,) which occurs, Col. i. 16, vide s. 45, 
ad finem. Ansels and the human soui belong 



170 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to the second class ; but the whole man belongs 
alike to the corporeal and spiritual kingdom. 

III. The Knowledge of the Works of God. 

The ancients had a very imperfect acquaint- 
ance with natural science. They remained con- 
tented for the most part with the first impres- 
sions which were made upon their senses, with- 
out being 1 able to penetrate into the internal na- 
ture of the objects around thern. We cannot, 
therefore, expect to find any very thorough and 
accurate acquaintance with natural science in 
the writings of a nation in so early a stage of 
improvement as the ancient Hebrews were. 
They were wholly incapable of a high degree 
of the knowledge of nature. And although 
some have thought they discovered it in the 
geogony of Moses, they have done so only by 
ascribing their own thoughts to his words, and 
embodying their own information in his account. 
The ancient hearers and readers of this history 
had no taste for all this, and would not have 
understood it. 

The more cultivated nations of antiquity, es- 
pecially the Greeks, and their disciples the Ro- 
mans, advanced indeed much beyond the He- 
brews in natural science. But they too were 
destitute of the requisite instruments and helps, 
and often trusted more to reasoning a priori 
than to experiment; and consequently their 
knowledge of nature, as a whole, bears no com- 
parison with ours, though in particular depart- 
ments they did much, considering the age in 
which they lived ; as appears from the works 
of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Hippocrates, Galen, 
Pliny, Seneca, and others. More considerable 
advances, however, have been made by Euro- 
peans in modern times, especially since the fif- 
teenth century, by means of the telescope, mi- 
croscope, and other newly invented philosophi- 
cal instruments, by which the secrets of nature 
have been disclosed. 

We have made these observations upon the 
study of nature in this place, not only because 
this study, and the general prevalence of correct 
natural science, contribute greatly to intellectual 
improvement, and in many respects to the en- 
nobling of man, but especially because they 
stand in intimate connexion with religion. On 
these accounts it must appear to be the duty of 
every man of education, and especially of the 
religious teacher, to acquaint himself with 
natural science, and also to give instruction to 
the common people and the young in those 
parts of it which they are capable of learning — 
always employing it, however, for religious 
purposes. This knowledge can and should be 
used — 

1. As a very easy and practical means of at- 
taining to the knowledge of the existence and 
attributes of God, and as well adapted to pro- 



mote a disposition and conduct corresponding to 
such knowledge, vide s. 15, I., where some 
physico-theological works are mentioned ; also, 
Morus, p. 74, s. 4, 5. 

2. As a preventive of superstition, and a re- 
medy for its evil consequences. The supersti- 
tious are those who believe things to be real, of 
whose reality they have no evidence, and who 
expect things will come to pass without the 
least reason for so doing. This is their pecu 
liar infirmity ; and the only suitable remedy is, 
for them to learn to judge correctly respecting 
the reality of things; to observe closely and 
examine properly the evidence of what they be- 
lieve, and then to believe only so far as their 
observation and evidence will warrant. The 
superstitious easily believe that an event ac- 
complished by natural means is accomplished 
by direct supernatural agency, and thus allow 
themselves to be deceived by tricks and artifices 
These false views cannot be proved to them tn 
be groundless in any way so clearly and effec- 
tually as by giving them a thorough knowledge 
of nature ; since by this we can shew them that 
an event which they had regarded as superna- 
tural was entirely in the usual course. This 
will have more influence than all the laws 
which could be enacted against superstitious, 
practices, magic, and fortune-telling, and more 
than all the punishments which could be inflict- 
ed upon magicians and fortune-tellers. The best 
laws and regulations of this kind are of little 
use, if the first source of such superstitious no- 
tions cannot be discovered and removed by 
proper instruction. This is the reason why 
even the wise regulations of Moses upon this 
subject were ineffectual among the Israelites. 
* Natural science ought, therefore, by no means 
to be neglected in the instruction of the common 
people and of the young; since it contributes so 
much to mental and moral improvement, to ge- 
nuine religion, and to the whole happiness of 
man. Cicero has an excellent remark upon this 
subject: Omnium rerum naturd cognitd levamur 
superstitione, — non conturbamur ignoratione re- 
rum, e qua ipsa horribiles ssepe existunt formi- 
dines ; denique etiam morati rnelius erimus, De 
Fin. i. 19. Bayle's work on comets should be 
read, as a thorough antidote to superstition. 
Cf. Wiegleb, Natiirliche Magie, continued by 
Rosenthal, which explains by natural causes 
many things considered by the common people 
as supernatural. 

In giving this instruction in natural science 
which has now been recommended, the religious 
teacher must carefully avoid all learned specula- 
tions and hypotheses, and introduce only that 
which can be made intelligible to the least im- 
proved understanding. He must not come for- 
ward in the character of a naturalist, for the 
purpose of merely instructing his people iu 



WORKS OF GOD. 



171 



natural science. This is not his calling. He 
must give this instruction only as a means of 
inspiring his people with reverence for God, of 
promoting their piety towards him and confi- 
dence in him, and of making them more happy 
and contented in their condition. He should 
exhibit it in connexion with the positive truths 
of Christianity, and in such a way that it will 
have no tendency to produce doubts and scepti- 
cism with regard to our holy religion. Cf. 
Flatt's Magazin, Ueber den Inhalt offentlicher 
Religionsvortrage an erwachsene Christen, St. 
i. Num. 7, and St. v. Num. 3. 

IV. End of God in the Creation. 

The scriptures declare expressly, that every- 
thing which God has made is good — i. e., ac- 
complishes exactly the purpose for which he 
made it. Moses represents God as testifying 
his pleasure in all that he had done, when the 
creation was completed, Gen. i. 31. The truth 
of the principle, that God has given to all his 
creatures the highest possible degree of per- 
fection, is evident both from his wisdom and 
his goodness. Vide s. 24, 28. Either our 
former theory respecting these attributes is 
untrue, (quod non potest esse,) or this principle 
is true. Acting under the guidance of infinite 
wisdom, and under the impulse of infinite good- 
ness, God could not but choose what is best. 

Upon this principle rests the doctrine of the 
test world, or optimism, which is found even in 
Plato, the stoics, and other ancient writers. 
According to Seneca, (Ep. 65,) Plato said, 
Deus mundum fecit quam optimum potuit. In 
modern times, this doctrine has found a decided 
advocate in Leibnitz, in his Theodicee, th. i. 
cap. 8. Wolf, in his Metaphysik, and others 
after him, have more fully developed it. If we 
presuppose that God could have conceived of 
many worlds as possible, the present world, 
which he preferred to the others, and to which 
therefore he gave existence, must be the best. 
If not, then God might prefer the worse and 
less perfect to the best and most perfect ; which 
would bespeak an imperfection both of intelli- 
gence and will. When God created the world, 
he foresaw, most clearly and infallibly, all his 
creatures — their nature, actions, and their con- 
nexion with the whole system. He must also 
be supposed to have had the best end in view 
in the creation of the world, and to have been 
able to apply the best means for the attainment 
of it; s. 24, 28. Moreover, his power is so 
unlimited that nothing could prevent him from 
giving the world a different constitution from 
that which it now has ; or, which is same thing, 
from creating a different world from that which 
now exists. Now since he has created the pre- 
sent world, it follows that no other world is so 
well adapted to the attainment of the divine 



purposes as this. We are, indeed, unacquaint 
ed with his designs, or with the final cause of 
the creation of the world. God, doubtless, had 
many ends in view, which we do not know, and 
of which we do not even think. Vide Morus, 
p. 75, s. 6. So far, however, as we consider 
the designs of God in respect to his creatures, 
(and in this respect alone can we consider 
them,) it was his object to give them indivi- 
dually that degree of perfection and of well- 
being of which they might be susceptible. 
This what is meant in the Bible, when it is said, 
He created every thing for his own glory, (rather, 
glorification,) in reference to us rational beings, 
who are to learn his majesty and his glorious 
perfections from the works of his hand. This 
is enough for us to know in order to make a 
wise use of the world. The theological doc- 
trine, that God had his own glory as his highest 
object in the creation of the world, when thus 
explained, is just and scriptural. Cf. s. 24, I; 
s. 18, I. Note. 

Now if optimism be thus defined, and if the 
supposition that many worlds were possible is 
admitted, it is a true doctrine. When, however, 
Leibnitz and Wolf maintained that the best 
world could not exist without imperfection, evil, 
and sin, (which will be farther considered in 
the articles on Providence and the Apostasy,) 
the theologians of that age were unable to re- 
concile it with their common theories and modes 
of expression, and supposed that by this doc- 
trine God was made the author of sin. This 
was the case with Buddeus, Lange, Weismann, 
and others. Vide Baumeister, Historia doc- 
trine recentius controversy de mundo optimo; 
Gorlit. 1741. 

The philosophy of Kant sets aside the theory 
of optimism as incapable of proof, and resting 
upon arbitrary notions of the moral attributes 
of God. Kant's objections against this doc- 
trine, or rather, against the abuse of it, may be 
found in his Kritik der Urtheilskraft ,• Berlin, 
1790, 8vo; and in Rehberg, Verhaltniss der 
Metaphysik zur Religion, Abschn. 5, 6. [Cf. 
Hahn, s. 60, Anmerk. 4, 5. Bretschneider, b. 
i. s. 584.] 

SECTION XLIX. 

OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION, 
ITS OBJECT, AND THE VARIOUS HYPOTHESES 
ADOPTED TO EXPLAIN IT. 

I. Object of this Narration, and whence it was 
derived. 

These points must be determined before we 
can attain a position from which we can survey 
the whole subject in all its bearings. Moses 
wrote primarily for his own nation, the Israel- 
ites. And the surest way to determine what 



172 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



end he had in view in writing this narrative, is 
to consider the circumstances and wants of the 
Jews at the time he wrote ; and these are best 
learned from his own books. 

1. One principal object which Moses had in 
view in this account, was to shew that the God 
whom the Israelites worshipped was the being 
from whom all things derived their existence, and 
that, consequently, their national God was the 
God and Lord of the whole universe, and not a 
being of so limited a nature as the national dei- 
ties at that time were usually imagined. The 
Israelites had a very strong propensity to the 
polytheism then prevalent. Even many among 
them, who worshipped Jehovah as their national 
God, still considered the heathen idols as dei- 
ties having rule over other nations and coun- 
tries. And so they frequently regarded Jehovah 
as the God of their own nation only, and their 
own land ; and not of the whole earth, or world. 
Vide s. 16. And as they had seen image-wor- 
ship in Egypt, they frequently worshipped their 
own God under various forms — e. g. that of a 
golden calf, Ex. xxxii. This tendency among 
the Jews gave rise to those severe laws which 
Moses enacted against image and idol worship, 
Ex. xx. 4; Deut. iv. 15 — 17. Many of the Is- 
raelites worshipped the stars. Vide the texts 
above cited. 

Now this history of the creation clearly shews 
that the God whom the Israelites worshipped is 
the Creator and Lord of the whole universe ; 
that the firmament and the stars, as well as the 
earth and its inhabitants, are his work, and his 
alone; that there are not many gods, but one 
only, the author of all things ; that these things 
were created by God for the good, advantage, 
and service of man, and not to be worshipped 
by him, and that, on the contrary, he himself is 
appointed by God to be the lord and ruler of the 
earth, and of all the inferior creatures that in- 
habit it. 

Such a history was the more necessary, from 
the fact that almost all the ancient books of le- 
gislation and religion began with cosmogonies. 
This was the case with the books of the Pheni- 
eians, Greeks, &c. The same might therefore 
have been expected from Moses by his country- 
men, especially as many of the cosmogonies of 
other nations were false, and needed to be cor- 
rected. 

2. Moses intended, also, by this account, to 
confirm, impress, and solemnize many of his 
positive institutions and laws. Thus what he 
says, in the account of the work of the fourth 
day, (ver. 14,) respecting the use of the sun and 
moon in the reckoning of time, was designed to 
recommend the custom which he had instituted 
among the Israelites of reckoning time, and ob- 
serving feasts and public solemnities, according 
to moons and lunar years. And thus, especially 



in the account which he gives of the seventh day 
(ii. 2, 3), on which God rested when his labours 
were done, he has an obvious reference to the 
institution of the Sabbath. This becomes still 
more evident on a comparison of these verses 
with Ex. xx. 8 — 11; for it is there expressly 
said respecting the Mosaic institution of the 
Sabbath, " that no labour should be done in it, 
because God laboured only six days, as it were, 
and rested on the seventh day ; wherefore God 
consecrated (^na) the seventh day, and appoint- 
ed it for a festival (**hp»)." In what way, 
now, could this solemn festival of the Jewish 
nation have received a higher sanction and inte- 
rest, than from such a consideration as this 1 The 
Sabbath was thus consecrated as a solemn festi- 
val in remembrance of the creation, and in it the 
Jews were required to rest from their labour in 
honour of God, their creator and the creator of the 
world, and to employ this rest in religious me- 
ditation, and in celebrating his perfections. 
Hence the Hebrew psalms intended for the Sab- 
bath day were hymns of praise to God for his 
greatness, as manifested in his works — e. g., 
Ps. xcii. 1, seq. This reference of Moses to 
the institution of the Sabbath in what he says 
of the consecration of the seventh day in his 
history of the creation, is so evident, that it was 
perceived by many of the ecclesiastical fathers 
— e. g., Philoponus, in the sixth century, in his 
Hexasmer, 1. i. c. 3. 

Eichhorn, in his " Urgeschichte," has endea- 
voured, very ingeniously, to carry out this idea 
respecting the object for which Moses wrote. 
Vide Repertor. fur bibl. Lit. th. iv. s. 129—172 ; 
Leipzig, 1779; and, Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, 
herausgegeben mit Einleitung und Anmerkun- 
gen, von Dr. Joh. Phil. Gabler, 1 th. Altorf und 
Nurenberg, 1790, 8vo, and lte Abth. des 2n th., 
at the same place, 1791. Cf. Gabler, Neuer 
Versuch iiber die Mosaische Schopfungsges- 
chichte aus der hohern Kritik; Altorf, 1795, 
8vo ; and, Vater, in his "Commentar zu dem 
Pentateuch," th. iii. Eichhorn, however, main- 
tains that Moses fabricated this whole history 
of the creation, for the mere purpose of esta- 
blishing some truth, or of sanctioning some of 
his religious institutions. But this opinion 
cannot be proved, and only involves us in new 
difficulties. There is no reason to regard this 
history as a fabrication of Moses himself, be- 
cause he is not known in any other case to have 
invented fables to recommend his most import- 
ant laws and institutions. Others are of opi- 
nion, that he found this history previously ex- 
isting, and applied it to the confirmation of his 
institutions. That such was the case cannot, 
however, be proved, as he himself is silent upon 
the subject. Such might have been the case; 
and the supposition detracts nothing from the 
author of the book of Genesis. This opinlrs 



WORKS OF GOD. 



173 



was maintained long since by Astriic in his 
"Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont 
il paroit que Moses s'est servi pour composer le 
livre de la Genese," (Bruxelles, 1753, 8vo,) and 
by Jerusalem, in his " Briefe ueber die Mosa- 
ische Schrift und Philosophie," (Braunschw. 
1762, Svo;) who endeavoured to shew, that 
Moses, in his first book, made use of ancient 
narratives orally transmitted, and of written me- 
morials, derived in part from the antediluvian 
world. The design, then, of Moses, (as the 
following chapters of his first book shew,) was 
to preserve in Genesis such venerable remnants 
of antiquity as had been handed down from the 
patriarchal age. Now if it is apparent, as even 
Eichhorn allows, that Moses made use of such 
fragments in the composition of the second and 
third chapters, it is hard to see why he should 
be supposed to have fabricated the whole narra- 
tive in the first chapter. Besides, it is common 
for the ancient traditions and religious memo- 
rials of a nation to begin with cosmogonies. 
And it is therefore probable, that an ancient ac- 
count of the creation had been transmitted, 
which Moses either inserted as he found it, or 
remodelled to suit his own purpose. All this, 
however, is mere hypothesis and ingenious con- 
jecture. 

The number seven has been a sacred number 
in all the East from the earliest times. Here, 
say some, is the ground of the representation 
that the creation lasted to the seventh day. 
But how can this be proved] With as much 
reason one might reverse the statement, and 
say, this account of the creation, which was 
widely circulated in the ages before and after 
the deluge, was the reason why the number 
seven was adopted as the sacred number. And 
no one is able to disprove this. Such hypothe- 
ses never lead to a certain result. 

As respects the Sabbath, it was not first in- 
stituted by Moses, but was an ancient usage, as 
Michaelis has shewn in his "Mosaisches Recht," 
and others after him, with much reason. Moses, 
however, found it necessary to enact new laws 
for the observance of this ancient institution. 
Eichhorn, indeed, considers this opinion un- 
founded, though without sufficient reason. For 
we find this day hallowed as a day of rest among 
the Israelites, even before the legislation of Moses 
commenced. Vide Ex. xvi. 23. The Sabbath 
is there called a day of holy rest in honour of 
Jehovah. Cf. J. W. Rau, Progr. de fictione 
Mosaica, falso adserta; Erlang. 1779. Beck, 
De fontibus sententiarum de creatione ; Lipsas, 
1782, 4to. Paulus, Abhandlung ueber die An- 
lage und den Zweck des ersten und zweyten 
Fragments der altesten Mosaischen Menschen- 
geschiehte, in his Neu. Reper. fur bibl. und 
morgendland. Lit. th. ii. Num. 5; Jena, 1790, 
8vo. He considers the first chapter of Genesis 



as an ancient Sabbath-hymn, which owes its 
whole form and structure to the division of time 
into six days for labour, and a day of rest. 

II. Consequences from these General Remarks. 

If the remarks made in No. I. are true, the 
following rules and principles must be adopted 
in the interpretation of the history of the crea- 
tion: — 

1. Moses did not write as a naturalist or phi- 
losopher, intending to make his account the basis 
of a scientific physiology. Vide Morus, p. 73, 
s. 3, Num. 2. He did not design to shew, as a 
naturalist would have done, the manner in which 
particular things were created. The opinion was 
formerly very prevalent, especially among the 
Jews, that the Bible was a general repository of 
every kind of knowledge, as well as of the doc- 
trines of faith and morality, or at least that it 
contained the first germ of all the sciences ; and 
as improvements were gradually made in natural 
science, they were supposed to be contained in 
the Bible, and from the general and comprehen- 
sive nature of scriptural language, often with 
great appearance of truth. But in this attempt 
the true object of the Bible was overlooked ; 
which was the reason, also, that allegorical in- 
terpretation found so much approbation for- 
merly. 

The writings of Homer met with the same 
fate among the Greeks which those of Moses 
have experienced among the Jews and Chris- 
tians. Everybody forced his own system upon 
these writings, and found it confirmed by them, 
without ever thinking that learned sciences did 
not exist at so early an age of the world, and 
that they are unsuitable to the common people 
of any age. They could not have been pos- 
sessed by the writers to whom they are attri- 
buted, nor could they have been understood by 
their contemporaries. 

The whole representation which Moses has 
given of the creation of the world is as simple 
as possible, and such as doubtless was perfectly 
intelligible to those who lived in that infant age 
of the world, and is still so to men in common 
life. The more familiar one becomes with the 
views and wants of men at large — the more he 
is able to place himself in their condition, the 
more justly will he be able to explain this pas- 
sage, and the more fully will he enter into the 
spirit of its author. In the Bible, God speaks 
with men after the manner of men, and not in a 
language which is beyond the comprehension 
of most of them, as the learned would fain make 
it to be. Well, indeed, is it for the great mass 
of mankind that the learned were not consulted 
respecting the manner in which the Bible should 
be written ! 

When the study of nature became more pre 

valent in the seventeenth century, it was very 

p2 



174 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



common among Christian interpreters, who at 
that time adopted the principle before stated, 
either to derive their systems of physiology from 
the writings of Moses, or to force them upon 
him. The first fault was committed, though 
with the best intentions, by the otherwise very 
deserving Joh. Amos Comenius, in his " Synopsi 
physices ad lumen divinum reformatae." He 
had many followers. The latter fault was first 
committed by some adherents of the Cartesian 
philosophy. They believed that they found 
many of the peculiar doctrines of Des Cartes 
very clearly exhibited in the writings of Moses. 
Des Cartes himself appeared to be of this opi- 
nion. Vide, e. g., Joh. Amerpoel (Cartesius 
Mosaizans), Beaufort, Rambert, and others. 

The same was done in the eighteenth century, 
and in still more modern times. There have 
always been some who have believed that they 
found the various philosophical systems of New- 
ton, Wolf, Buffon, and Bergmann in the writings 
of Moses, or at least that they could reconcile 
these philosophers with him. But Moses will 
as little confirm the theories of one philosopher 
as he will contradict those of another. All the 
attempts made by different philosophers to an- 
swer objections to their own theory drawn from 
the Mosaic geogony, or to draw arguments from 
it to confute the theories of others, are labour 
thrown away. Cf. Silberschiag, Geogonie, oder, 
Erklarung der Mosaischen ErderschafFung nach 
physikalischen und mathematischen Grundsat- 
zen, 3 thle ; Berlin, 1780 — 83, a work which 
contains much of the sort above mentioned. Cf. 
the "Neue Theorie der Erde," by the same 
author, containing many very good scientific 
observations, but also many rash and untenable 
positions. Vide also, De Luc, Lettres phy- 
siques et morales sur i'histoire de la terre et de 
l'homme, a la Haye, 6 torn. 1779, 8vo. Dr. Ro- 
senmuller, Antiquiss. telluris Historia ; Ulma?, 
1776, 8vo, is very useful as a collection of ma- 
terials for a history of opinions, &c. 

2. In this description of the creation regard is 
shewn to the comprehension of common men, 
especially of men in that early age ; and it is 
not improbable, as remarked before, that it may 
have been composed by Moses from ancient 
written records. 

The general subject of this passage is indi- 
cated in ver. 1. This is then enlarged upon in 
the following verses, not to gratify the curiosity 
of scientific men, but to meet the wants of those 
who lived in the age in which it was written, 
and of common men in a^l ages. This amplifi- 
cation is entirely simple and popular ; and when 
the work of creation is here represented as a six- 
days' work, it is to be considered as ^picture, in 
which God appears as a human workman, who 
accomplishes what he undertakes only by piece- 
meal, and on each successive day lays out and 



performs a separate portion of his business. By 
such a representation the notion of the creation 
is made easy to every mind ; and common peo- 
ple, seeing it so distinctly portrayed, can form 
some clear conceptions concerning it, and read 
or hear the account of it with interest. 

Many modern writers (e. g., Paulus) are of 
opinion that Moses, or the author of this history, 
whoever he may be, designed this description 
merely as a philosopheme respecting the manner 
in which the creation might have taken place, 
not intending that it should be understood as 
literal fact. And it cannot be denied that we 
find many difficulties in the whole narration con- 
sidered as literally true. These difficulties, how- 
ever, do not justify us in affirming that Moses 
did not design to represent these events as ac- 
tually taking place. On the contrary, it clearly 
appears from many other texts in his writings 
that he did intend to relate these events as literal 
facts. He himself elsewhere alludes to the 
creation, as Morus justly remarks, (p. 73, s. 3, 
n. 2,) as to res in facto posita; as Ex. xx. 11 ; 
xxxi. 17. 

This Mosaic history of the creation teaches us 
the three following truths : (a) that the world 
began to exist, and that God was its author, 
(Gen. i. 1 ;) and that the world therefore is not 
eternal, and God is wholly distinct from the 
world, (b) That the constitution, connexion, 
and final destination of all existing things are 
from God alone, ver. 2, seq. (c) That the uni- 
verse, and especially our earth, was not brought 
at once by the hand of its Creator into the form 
and state in which we now see it ; but yet within 
a moderately short time. 

Herder's " Aelteste Urkunde des Menschen 
geschlechts" contains many very valuable re- 
marks which may assist one in placing this his- 
tory in its proper light. His statements, how- 
ever, are frequently obscure and enigmatical, 
and built in a great measure upon hypothesis. 
Vide a review of this work in the " Allgem. 
deutschen Bibl.," thle. 2£, 30. But the » Ur- 
geschichte" of Eichhorn is the most important 
work on this subject. It was first published in 
the"Repert. fur bibl. Liter." th. 4; Leipzig, 
1779 ; and edited with notes, by Gabler ; Altorf, 
1790. These are also a number of essays on 
this subject by Dr. Paulus and others, in his Re- 
pertorium, Memorabilien, and Theological Jour- 
nal. Cf. Ilgen, Urkunde des Jerusalem'schen 
Tempelarchivs, and Vater, Commentar uber 
den Pentateuch. 

3. From this history of the creation it follows, 
that our globe, and the race of men that now 
dwells upon it, is about six thousand years old. 
I say, about six thousand years. For Moses 
does not give us an exact chronology, and time 
cannot be reckoned with certainty from the ge- 
nealogies of the patriarchs, because only the 



WORKS OF GOD. 



175 



most remarkable men and their families are 
mentioned, while less distinguished names and 
generations are omitted. This is the common 
custom in oriental genealogies; and is the case 
in the first of Matthew. Besides, there is a 
great difference between our present Hebrew 
text and the Cod. Sam. and the LXX., in respect 
to the number of years ; although the readings 
of our texts, on the whole, are far better sup- 
ported than the others. 

The human race is much older than this, ac- 
cording to the belief of some other nations — 
e. g., the Chinese and Indian. The whole sub- 
ject, indeed, presents many difficulties; it is, 
however, strange, that Voltaire and other ene- 
mies of the Bible should have embraced in such 
a credulous and partial manner the monstrous 
and unfounded calculations of the Chinese and 
Indians in preference to the evidence which may 
be derived from Moses. Some have endeavoured 
to confirm the truth of the Mosaic account of the 
later origin of the human race from the more 
recent origin of the arts and sciences among men 
than would be consistent with the theories be- 
fore mentioned, and from many other considera- 
tions ; which, however, in themselves, are not 
satisfactory. 

One important question in relation to this sub- 
ject remains to be investigated : Does Moses 
speak in the first chapter of the first creation of 
the globe, or only of a new creation, a remodel- 
ling of it, and planting it with a new race 1 Cf. 
Morus, p. 73, n. 6. Many modern naturalists 
affirm that the earth must have existed much 
earlier than the time of which Moses speaks, 
perhaps a thousand years ; and that during this 
earliest period it must have undergone astonish- 
ing revolutions, to which, however, no history 
can of course extend, as they took place before 
the existence of the present race of men. They 
think these tremendous revolutions are proved 
by the sea-animals which are found, sometimes 
singly and sometimes in whole layers, upon the 
highest mountains and in the deepest clefts 
of the earth, far distant from the present bed 
of the ocean; by the remnants of plants and 
beasts found in climates entirely different from 
those in which they are native — e. g., the bones 
of the elephant found in Liberia, &c. ; by the pe- 
trifactions which are found deep in the interior 
of the earth, &c. All these appearances are con- 
sidered by some as proof that great alterations 
have taken place in the earth which lie far bp- 
yond the reach of our history. Vide BiifTon and 
Justi, Geschichte des Erdbodens aus seinen 
innerlichen und aiisserlichen Beschaffenheiten 
hergeleitet und erwiesen; Berlin, 1771, 8vo; 
Bergmann, Physikalische Beschreibung der 
Erdkugel; Greifswald, 1769. Other great na- 
turalists, however, even Linneus, Haller, De 
Luc, and Silbersc hlag, do not think these facts 



are incontrovertible proof of what many have so 
confidently deduced from them. 

Many modern interpreters and theologians 
have supposed, in order to reconcile more easily 
the account of Moses with the assertions and 
hypotheses of modern naturalists, that Moses 
speaks of the creation of the whole universe in 
the first verse only ; and that from ver. 2 on- 
wards he turns exclusively to the earth, and then 
describes, not its first creation, but only a re- 
formation and new constitution of it. They sup- 
pose, accordingly, that in the first verse he in- 
tends to say simply, God created the whole 
universe, without determining when, and that in 
the following verses he has particular reference 
to the earth, and describes its present formation, 
without determining whether it took place at the 
very time when God created the universe or a 
thousand years afterwards, when the earth may 
have been already once or many times inhabited 
by different races of beings. They have endea- 
voured once to establish this hypothesis even by 
other texts of scripture, as Ps. civ. 6 — 9, which 
indeed is an amplification of the Mosaic account 
of the creation, but which gives no information 
respecting the time or the duration of this revolu- 
tion, and none respecting a race of creatures 
previously existing upon the earth. The pas- 
sage, 2 Pet. iii. 6, is cited with still less propriety 
in support of this hypothesis. The 6 tots xoa- 
^ioj refers undoubtedly to the men who lived be- 
fore the flood ; as appears from chap. ii. 5. 

The following remarks may enable us to de- 
cide with regard to this hypothesis : 

It is true that, from ver. 2 onwards, Moses 
confines himself principally to our globe, though 
still, in ver. 14 — 19, he describes the creation 
of the heavenly bodies ; which description, ac- 
cording to this hypothesis, must be considered 
as merely optical, intended to convey the idea 
that these bodies then for the first time became 
visible from the newly-formed earth. But it 
cannot be proved that Moses intended from ver, 
2 to describe only a new formation of the earth. 

1. He always distinctly connects the creation 
of the earth with that of the rest of the universe, 
and he uses expressions so entirely similar re- 
specting the two that open violence must be done 
to his words before they can be understood to 
refer at one time to a re-formation of the earth, 
and at another to its original creation, according 
to this modern hypothesis — e. g., Gen. ii. 1, 
"Thus the heavens and the earth were com- 
pleted, and all the host of them" — i. e., all crea- 
tures. Ex. xx. 11, "In six days, God made 
heaven and earth and sea, and all which there- 
in is." 

2. Those who consider this history of the 
creation as a mere human production, as is very 
common at the present day, cannot consistently 
admit that Moses intended to describe only a 



176 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



remodelling of the earth. For this notion is too 
little in the spirit of the ancient world, and too 
nicely adjusted to our present physiological and 
astronomical knowledge, to have occurred to an 
uninspired historian. The ancients always sup- 
posed the earth to be the centre of the universe, 
and the author of this history, living at that early 
period, and left to himself, could hardly have 
conjectured that it had previously undergone any 
such revolutions and changes as are spoken of. 
Cf. s. 48, II. An uninspired author, writing in 
ancient times, could scarcely have conceived 
that the earth should have been created later 
than the other heavenly bodies, since they were 
supposed to exist principally for the sake of the 
earth. Thus, on the supposition that this record 
is a mere human production, and that Moses, 
without any divine influence, inserted it in the 
book of Genesis, we may draw an argument xar' 
av^pcortov against the truth of the above expla- 
nation. 

We must therefore rest in the belief that it 
was the real opinion of Moses that God created 
and finished the whole material world, the whole 
visible universe, together; and, indeed, in that 
order and connexion which he describes in the 
first chapter of Genesis. 

The hypotheses of modern naturalists respect- 
ing the material of our globe can neither be con- 
firmed nor refuted from the writings of Moses. 
Which of all those that have been suggested 
is true ? that of Whiston, who supposes the 
earth to be formed from a comet; that of Leib- 
nitz, who makes it a sunburnt out; that of Buf- 
fon, according to whom all the heavenly bodies 
are fragments broken off from the body of the 
sun by the concussion of a comet; or that of 
Wideburg, who supposes the earth to have been 
originally a spot on the sun; must be determined 
on other grounds than the testimony of Moses. 
Vide Silberschlag's " Geogonie" for an account 
of these and other systems. He justly rejects 
the opinion that Moses speaks in this passage 
only of a revolution or remodelling of the earth. 

All these learned speculations and inquiries 
respecting the material of the earth &c. lie be- 
yond the object and sphere of Moses. And any 
of these hypotheses of the naturalists may be 
adopted or rejected, the Mosaic geogony not- 
withstanding. Nor can the authority of Moses 
be brought to decide the question, whether the 
whole globe, or only the higher regions of Asia, 
received at first their full and complete forma- 
tion and present structure. Herder and Doeder- 
lein suppose the latter; but the author of this 
record appears rather to favour the former. He 
speaks in general terms of the earth — that is, 
so far as it was known to him. Still nothing 
can be determined upon this subject from his 
authority. 

Note. — The question has been asked, At what 



time in the year was the world created? The 
Jews commonly answer, according to the Chal- 
daic paraphrasts and the cabalists, that the world 
was created in autumn. They found their opi- 
nion principally upon the supposed fact, that the 
patriarchs in the most ancient times commenced 
their year in autumn ; but of this there is no de- 
finite proof. Others say, in the spring; with 
which opinion many of the fathers and most mo- 
dern Christian writers agree. Scaliger, in the 
first edition of his work, " De emendat. tempp.," 
advocated the latter opinion; but in the second 
edition, the former. In favour of this opinion, 
Gen. i. 11 is cited, " Let the earth bring forth 
grass and herb ;" which suits better with spring 
than harvest. Exod. xii. 2 is also cited, where 
it is said that the month Nisan (April) shall be 
the first in the year of the Jews, &c. Accord- 
ing to Solinus and Macrobius, the Egyptians 
gave out the summer as the first season of the 
year. The whole inquiry is fruitless and idle; 
for the season can only be relatively determined 
in respect to the situation of the country in 
which our first parents lived. For the time of 
the seasons is not everywhere the same ; when 
it is summer in one place, it is winter in an- 
other. 

SECTION L. 

EXPLANATION OF THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF 
THE CREATION. 

I. General Account of the Creation of the World. 

rutafcna — i. e., the first of all the events in the 
world, that with which the history of all things 
commenced, was the creation of the universe 
(heaven and earth, s. 45) by God. Philo says, 
To* ev apx^J srtoiqG sv, I gov tat 't ta' rCputov 
irtoiqfc tov ovpavov, De Opif. Mundi, p. 16, Pf. 
And so Cicero says, "A principio omnia facta 
a diis et constituta sunt" De Officiis, i. 4, coll. 
De Natura Deorum, i. 12. Before this, God 
alone existed ; and he gave existence to every- 
thing which is exterior to himself. In the same 
way we must explain iv apxy %v 6 %6yo^ 
John, i. 1. " 'E| -ap^'/jj," (ab initio mundi,) 
Hesiod, Theog. v. 45. 

After prefixing this general statement, Moses 
now (ver. 2) proceeds to describe the creation 
of the earth ; vide s. 49. « The earth was 
waste (irin is applied by the Hebrews and Ara- 
bians to deserts and wasted towns) and empty, 
('.n3, void, unoccupied, like a chamber without 
furniture ; so in Arabic") Both terms occur 
in Isaiah, xxxiv. 11. The earth is thus repre- 
sented as a rude, formless mass, which, toge- 
ther with the rest of the material world, is now 
framed by the artificer in the space of six days, 
and which gradually receives its full perfection. 
The whole description is after the manner of 



WORKS OF GOD. 



177 



men, and is adapted to common apprehension. 
The same may be said of the description of the 
creation of man in the second chapter ; he was 
made gradually, and was formed like any other 
work of art. 

" And darkness was upon the deep waters." 
avtn is rendered by Luther, die Tiefe, the deep,- 
djSrawj by the LXX ; but is also deep tvaters, 
prof undum, prof undum pelagtis ; so frequently in 
the scriptures, the sea — e. g., Gen. xlix. 25 ; Psa. 
cvi. 9. The meaning here is, the earth, which 
was then overflowed with water, was in dark- 
ness. Moses and the ancient Hebrew prophets 
always describe the original condition of the 
earth in this way. It was all an open sea, dark 
and dreadful. The water gradually subsided; 
the higher regions first became visible, and then 
the low lands ; and they were covered with light, 
as is described below. A fuller delineation, and 
a poetic comment on this passage, is contained 
in Psa. civ. 5 — 9. Moses calls the mountains, 
the eldest sons of the earth — those which the earth 
first produced, Psa. xc. 2, because the mountains 
first rose from the water, and became visible. 
Similar opinions respecting the original con- 
dition and primitive form of the earth are found 
among other nations — e. g., the Egyptians 
(Diod. Sicul. i. 7) and the Phenicians, (Euse- 
bius, Praep. Evan. i. 10, taken from Sanchuni- 
athon.) They supposed that in the beginning 
all was confused, gloomy, and dark. So the 
Orphean Hymns represent. And this supposition 
is in itself very natural ; for darkness commonly 
precedes light; disorder, order; and emptiness, 
fulness. The overflowing of water is still the 
occasion of the most wide-spread desolation, and 
even of great alterations on the surface of the 
earth. According to Homer, 'Slxsavos was the 
eldest progenitor of all the gods; and from him 
everything proceeded, II. xiv. 201, 246; xv. 
187, seq. Many modern naturalists suppose that 
the bottom of the sea was pressed up by subter- 
ranean fire, and that in this way the mountains 
and firm land arose above the waters. On this 
supposition the sea-products found upon moun- 
tains are explained. Vide Silberschlag's " Ge- 
ogonie." Moses does not contradict this opi- 
nion ; but neither, on the other hand, have we 
reason to believe that he intended to teach it. 
He only relates the fact that the dry land ap- 
peared, without determining how this was 
brought about, whether from the subsidence of 
the waters, from the action of internal fire, or 
some other cause. 

aran \i--^y n ?TP ay?*? nn. What is here 
called 3\-f?s nn, is elsewhere called dtiSn novh, 
Gen. ii. 7; Psa. civ. 30; the spirit, the breath 
of God, which vivifies everything — i. e., the ef- 
ficient, all-animating, all-creative power of God. 
On the word nn, vide s. 9, and s. 19, IL «jrn 
23 



is variously explained. The LXX. and other 
Greek interpreters render it E7ts$ipE?o, moved 
over the waters. The Chaldaic, Samaritan, 
and both the Arabic versions, render it blew over 
the waters. Others render it, to make warm, 
calefacere, (to vivify ;) because it is applied to 
the hatching of eggs by warmth, Dent, xxxii. 
11. Michaelis translates it from the Syriac, to 
descend, let one's self down, se demittere. In 
whatever way it is translated, the main idea re- 
mains the same — the effect and motion produced 
by the almighty power of God. 

II. The Six-days' Work,- vcr. 3, seq. 

1. Introductory remarks upon the question, 
What is here meant by days? and respecting 
some difficulties which occur in relation to the 
whole description, and the manner of obviating 
them. 

It appears from the preceding sections, that 
God may be supposed either to have created at 
once the whole system of things, as it now ex- 
ists, or to have first produced the material from 
which all things were formed, with the power 
to develop itself gradually, and that he may 
have caused this further development to proceed 
by means of these natural powers, himself ex- 
erting a direct influence only where they were 
insufficient. The latter is the scriptural idea. 
The object of exhibiting the creation as a six- 
days' work has been shewn to be, to render the 
subject perspicuous and intelligible to men; to 
depict before their eyes the manner in which 
each thing in succession was accomplished, and 
the whole gradually finished under divine influ- 
ence and dirpction. 

By days Moses appears to have meant com- 
mon days of twenty-four hours. For [a) their 
limits are always determined by morning and 
evening, which being understood literally, the 
day must be literal also, (b) In all other texts 
where Moses alludes to the account of the crea- 
tion, literal days are always clearly presup- 
posed — e. g., Exod. xx. 11, where the institu- 
tion of the Sabbath in described ; and chap. 
xxxi. 17. But interpreters find various diffi- 
culties in this supposition. How, they ask, 
could so much be done in one day, without 
heaping together too many miracles'? or, how 
could Moses speak of days, in ver. 5, 8, 13, be- 
fore the sun as yet existed, which, according to 
ver. 16, seq., was not until the fourth day 1 and 
many more questions of the same kind. To 
avoid these difficulties various other hypotheses 
are invented. Some say the three first days 
were periods of indefinite length, but the three 
last, ordinary days of twenty-four hours; so 
Michaelis. Others understand by d\?\ through 
the whole description, periods of indefinite 
length ; or they prolong each day into a mon 



178 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



strous duration. According to Des Cartes, each 
day was a thousand years ,• six thousand years, 
therefore, were occupied in forming the earth ! 
According to Whiston, each day is one year 
only. But such conjectures, as everybody sees, 
are arbitrary and groundless. 

If we would form a clear and distinct notion 
of this whole description of the creation, we 
must conceive of six separate pictures, in which 
this great work is represented in each succes- 
sive stage of its progress towards completion. 
And as the performance of the painter, though 
it must have natural truth as its foundation, 
must not be considered or judged of as a deli- 
neation of mathematical or scientific accuracy, 
so neither must this pictorial representation of 
the creation be regarded as literally and exactly 
true. 

First picture ; ver. 3 — 5. The earth, before 
dark and invisible, is enlightened, that the spec- 
tator may be able to see it, and that the builder 
may be able to mould and fashion the materials 
upon which he is to work. This light is of pe- 
riodical succession, causing day and night, be- 
cause the whole is divided into days' works. 
Whence this light proceeds is a question which 
cannot properly be proposed here ; it is sufficient 
to say that there must have been light enough 
to enable the spectator in some measure to dis- 
cern the objects as they were formed. We 
cannot conclude, that because the light of day 
at present proceeds from the sun, there could 
have been no light before the sun existed. In- 
deed, there are other luminous bodies besides 
our sun, which shine with unborrowed light. 
The sun itself was not created until the fourth 
day. At present it is sufficient that it is alter- 
nately clear and obscure, and that there is light 
both for the artificer and the spectator. Proba- 
bly, however, it was onl} r a glimmering and 
obscure light, like the morning or evening twi- 
light. 

Second picture ; ver. 6 — 8. Though light has 
dawned upon the earth, an ocean still encircles 
the globe, and cloud and vapour float over the 
waters. The upper water is now separated from 
the under; so that, as the Egyptians say, hea- 
ven and earth may no more he commingled and 
united in one mass, (Diod. Sic. 1, 7,) as they 
were on the first day. This is the second day's 
work. 

Third picture ; ver. 9 — 13. After this great 
division, the other great movements can now 
proceed without hindrance. The builder first 
applies his hand to the inferior portion. He 
causes the dry land to rise from the lower waters, 
and separates it from the ocean, and from the 
smaller collections and currents of water, which 
now flow into the lower regions of the earth. 
This land is next furnished with plants of every 



kind. The naturalist may indeed object, that it 
is incredible that plants should spring from the 
earth before the appearance of the sun ; but it 
does not follow that, because such is the uni- 
form course since the universe and the earth are 
finished, therefore such must have been the case 
in this incipient state. Besides, it seems that 
the plants were only created on the third day, 
and grew and increased immediately on the ap- 
pearance of the sun on the following day. On 
this third day the earth was sowed and planted 
for the first time by Him who created the seeds 
and plants. And as we frequently sow and 
plant to-day because we expect that to-morrow 
and on the succeeding days there will be wea- 
ther favourable to the growth and germination 
of the seeds; so may God have now sowed and 
planted the earth, in prospect of the sun which 
on the morrow he should place in the heavens. 

Fourth picture,- ver. 14 — 19. The superior 
portion is now to be fashioned — the upper 
waters, or the atmosphere. Here now the ob- 
server discovers the sun, moon, and stars appa- 
rently floating in a high and immeasurable dis- 
tance above the clouds. These henceforth en- 
lighten the earth and shed their influence upon 
it. The little moon is represented as, next to 
the sun, the greatest light, because it appears so 
to us. A painter would justly be accused of a 
fault, if he should otherwise represent it. He 
must represent it as it appears to the eye. 

Fifth picture ; ver. 20 — 23. The upper and 
lower waters are peopled with inhabitants— * 
birds, fishes, and other creatures of the sea. 
The supposition sometimes made, that Moses 
describes the birds as formed from the waters, 
is without foundation. 

Sixth picture ,- ver. 24 — 31. The inhabitants 
of the dry land are now produced, after every- 
thing is properly prepared for them, and provi- 
sion made for their sustenance — all the beasts 
of the field, quadrupeds, and reptiles; and, 
lastly, man himself, the lord of this lower cre- 
ation. He is not introduced into his dwelling 
before it is entirely ready. The house is first 
built, and then the occupant enters. Vide the 
Article on the creation of man. 

At the end of the sixth day the builder once 
more reviews his whole work — " He considered 
everything which he had made, and behold ! it 
was very good." The same formula of appro- 
bation occurs at the end of the several days' 
works, with only two exceptions — viz., (a) It 
is entirely wanting at the end of the second day's 
work, (ver. 8.) In some MSS. of the Septua- 
gint, the formula is here introduced, but it is 
wanting in others. Zacharia conjectures (Bibl. 
th. ii. s. 31, f.) that the words, "And the even- 
ing and the morning were the second day," 
which now stand at the end of ver. 8, should be 



WORKS OF GOD. 



179 



first introduced at the end of ver. 10, before the 
words, " and God saw that it was good ;" mak- 
ing what is now the beginning of the third day's 
work a part of the second. Bat this transposi- 
tion is unnecessary. The use of this formula 
of approbation appears not to be regulated by 
the division of days, but by the completion of 
the larger portions of the creation. All the 
changes which the water was to undergo were 
not finished at the end of the second day — they 
continue even into the third ; and this appears 
to be the reason why the formula of approbation 
is omitted at the end of the second day. (6) 
This formula stands in the middle of the de- 
scription of the work of the sixth day, imme- 
diately after the mention of the creation of the 
beasts in ver. 26. Michaelis and Eichhorn well 
observe here, that it answers the purpose of a 
pause, before the transition is made from the in- 
ferior creation, here completed, to the production 
ci man, the noblest creature of the earth. 

2. Explanation of some obscure terms which 
occur in the description of the six days' work. 

Ver. 3. For the meaning of the term to speak, 
as used here and in the rest of the history of the 
creation, vide s. 47, II. 1. 

Ver. 6. pjji is translated by Luther, Teste, 
because the Vulgate has firmamentum, which is 
a translation of the arspi^ua of the LXX. jj-n, 
the root of this word, signifies, to stamp (with 
the feet), Ezek. vi. 11 ; xxv. 6 ; and hence, to 
spread out, to expand, to hammer out, to tread 
out, (calcando expandere.') Moses and the other 
sacred writers always use this term to denote the 
heavens — das Gewulbe, fornix, camera — the wel- 
kin, the expanse over our heads; elsewhere, the tent 
of the heavens. The origin of the term, and of 
the idea from which it is derived, can be best 
learned from Ezekiel's vision, i. 22, 23, 26 ; x. 
1. yp-\ there denotes the floor of the throne of 
God in heaven. God, the Ruler and Judge, 
was imagined by the Jews as sitting upon a 
throne in heaven. Other nations had the same 
conception. According to Homer, the gods sat 
with Jupiter, zpvjico iv Barte^a, (upon a golden 
floor;) II. iv. 2. The upper sanctuary and the 
throne of God, then, is above the expanse of the 
heavens. This expanse is the floor upon which 
he places his feet, and over which he rides in 
his chariot of thunder. Vide the texts cited 
from Ezekiel. Hence the whole earth, which 
has this jp;n for a covering, is frequently called 
the footstool of God. By jr>;ji is meant (a) the 
atmosphere, which bears the rainy and stormy 
clouds: also (5) whatever is still above them — 
all that the eye can see over us in the heavens. 
In the immeasurable distance of the blue sky, 
high above the region of the clouds, float the 
sun, moon, and stars, as it appears to the eye. 
For this reason they are placed in the firma- 



ment, ver. 15, 17. When it is said, ver. 8, 
" God called the r,-n, heaven," it is as much as 
to say, what we call heaven is God's footstool ; 
what we behold high over our heads is under 
his feet. So in Homer it is said, " Men call it 
so; the gods call it differently." The Deity 
sees everything in a different light from what 
we do, and therefore names everything differ- 
ently, to speak after the manner of men. 

Ver. 11, 12. ketj is the generic name for 
everything which grows out of the earth — the 
green plant, fjj is the specific name for trees 
and arboreous plants, it-; stands for the herb 
and lesser plants, yy is used in Hebrew in re- 
ference both to sowing and planting, like the 
Latin serere, and denotes therefore here every 
kind of propagation. 

Ver. 14. The usefulness of the heavenly bo- 
dies to the earth and to men is here stated. The 
word n**, sign, signifies a mark for the division 
of time. The sun and stars are intended to de- 
termine the times, (nvjpiD,) the days, and the 
years. DnjriE are not so much the four revolv- 
ing seasons of the year, as months. For (a) they 
are connected with years and days. (5) In Ps. 
civ. 19, the anpc are said to be determined by 
the moon, because they are defined by her mo- 
tion : — " He created the moon for the computa- 
tion of time." 

Ver. 20. pTE?, webendt Thiere, (moving crea- 
tures,) Luther, fys signifies, to swarm. It 
denotes, literally, the lively, rapid motion of 
beasts who are collected in gTeat multitudes. 
Hence it is used in reference to fishes, birds, 
and other animals — e. g., Exod. i. 7. Here 
it is applied to sea animals. Cf. Ps. civ. 25. 
D^DOT \::-~"7, not supra calum, but to heaven, to- 
wards heaven, heavenwards ,• as the flight of birds 
appears to the eye. 

Ver. 21. D^an, TVallflsche (whales), Luther, 
because the LXX. have xrrr, and the Vulgate 
ceti. But these wcrds signify all great fishes, 
pisces cetaeei. The Hebrew word is used for all 
the beasts of the sea of the greater kind, as 
Psalm civ. 26 ; for the crocodile, Ezek. xxix. 3 ; 
xxxii. 2 ; also for great serpents, frrn is the 
name for all creatures which move upon the 
belly; hence, the worm. It is applied, how- 
ever, sometimes to creatures that swim, and 
even to quadrupeds who do not go upright, like 
man. 

Ver. 22. Tp2 denotes here, as frequently, the 
propagation of the species, or the bestowment 
of the power to propagate the race ; as ver. 28 ; 
Gen. xxiv. 60; Ps. cxxviii. 3, 4. 

Ver. 24. A division of land-animals; (a) 
nrr.s, the larger kind of tame, domestic ani- 
mals, when opposed to rm. (&) ir--;, the smaller 
kind of tame animals, (c) pjprw, the wild 
beast. 



180 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ARTICLE VI. 

OP THE CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION 

OF MAN. 



SECTION LI. 

OF THE NATURE OF MAN, ESPECIALLY OF THE 
SOUL OF MAN, AND OF HIS DESTINATION. 

With this subject it will be most convenient 
to commence thii Article. After this, we shall 
consider the Mosaic account of the creation of 
man ; then, his happy original condition, not only 
as described by the Bible and by Christian 
writers, but also by those who have not enjoyed 
the light of revelation ; and lastly, the preserva- 
tion and propagation of the human race. 

I. The Nature of Man. 

1 . Of hoiv many parts does man consist ? The 
holy scriptures, and even those of the Old Tes- 
tament, constantly teach that man consists of 
two parts, body and soul — e. g., Eccl. xii. 7, 
"The dust returns again to the earth, of which 
it is a part; the spirit returns to God, who gave 
it;" Matt. x. 28, "Fear not those who kill the 
body, but cannot kill the soul;" &c. Nor can 
we suppress the conviction that there is within 
us a nature different from the body, and superior 
to it — an enlivening and quickening principle, 
through which we possess the power of feeling, 
thinking, willing, and acting. But notwith- 
standing this conviction, there have always been 
different opinions with regard to the constituent 
parts of human nature. Some have maintained 
that either the soul or the body is the only es- 
sential part of man ; while others have main- 
tained that he consists of three essential parts, 
body, soul, and spirit. This opinion had its ori- 
gin in the cabalistic and Platonic philosophy. 
The cabalists divided the human soul into vsi 
{life, anima vegeiiva), nm (the sensitive soul, 
anima sensitiva), and nDtfJ, (the rational soul, 
anima rationalist By this division, however, 
they did not mean to teach that there are three 
different substances, but three different powers of 
one substance. Plato, too, as appears from the 
history of philosophy, ascribed to man a two- 
fold or threefold soul, but neither did he pretend 
that man consists of three parts. Some modern 
philosophers, who have lived since the time of 
the schoolmen, have also adopted the opinion of 
the cabalists, and divide the soul into three parts ; 
while others defend the opinion that the soul is 
Ivjnfold, and divide the whole man into three 
parts. But they express themselves so obscurely 
and ambiguously that it is often doubtful whe- 
ther by these divisions they understand different 
substances, or only various powers of one and 



the same substance. The Christian theologians 
and philosophers who believe that man consists 
of three essential parts differing from each other, 
sometimes appeal to scripture in behalf of their 
opinion. They quote the texts, Luke, i. 46, 
47 : " My soul magnifies the Lord ; my spirit 
rejoices in God," &c. Is. xxvi. 9, and espe- 
cially 1 Thess. v. 23, "That your spirit and 
soul and body may be preserved blameless to the 
coming of Christ ;" also Heb. iv. 12. The first 
who asserted this opinion in modern times was 
Theophrastus Paracelsus, who was followed by 
Jacob Boehmen, Weigel, and other theosophists ; 
also by Andr. Riidiger in his Physica Divina. 
Luther likewise adopted this division, though 
it is very clear that he did not consider spirit 
and soul as different substances, but only as 
different attributes and operations of the same 
spiritual essence. Respecting the texts of scrip- 
ture above cited, it may be remarked, (a) That 
in most of those cited, rtvtvua and ^vyjq are sy- 
nonymous ; as in Isaiah and Luke ; also in Heb. 
iv. 12, where they may be rendered either life 
or soul, as the passage refers to death, or the 
separation of the soul or life from the body. 
(b) The passage in the epistle to the Thessalo- 
nians may be explained in two ways. As Paul 
evidently here writes in strong excitement, he 
may have heaped these words together, though 
they do not differ in meaning, in order to give 
his admonition more effect. So Augustine sup- 
posed, (De Anima, iv. 21.) But the probability 
is, that he meant to distinguish rtv^vixa and ■fyvxt ; 
not meaning, however, by any means, to imply 
that man consists of three essential parts; but 
only to distinguish rivsvfia and tyvxy as two 
different powers of one substance. This the 
Hebrews and Grecian Jews frequently did. 
By rtvsvfia and r\)~\, they often meant, the supe- 
rior faculties of the soul, the reason ,• and by <fyvxvi 
and vdi the sensual part, which we possess in 
common with the brutes — the desires, Sinnlich- 
keit-, Ps. cxxxi. 2, seq. Josephus says, Arch. 
i. 1., "'Ert'katiev o 0e6j av^tpcoHov, x°vv owto t^j 
yrfi %aj5u>v, xai rtvsvjxa ivqxtv avtu xal 4 /^, # J ^ v • 
Philo and the New-Testament writers frequent- 
ly use tyvxy an d -^vxixos in this sense. Vide 
Jude, ver. 19. 

{Note. — The theory according to which man 
is divided into two parts is called dichotomy ; 
that by which he is divided into three parts, tri- 
chotomy. The latter of these, so rare at the pre- 
sent day, was the prevailing theory with the 
early fathers. Vide Tatian, Orat. ad Grsecos, p. 
151, seq. ; Irenseus, Adv. Haeres. v. 6, 7, 9 ; Ori- 
gen, 7tipl ap^wv, iii. 4 ; Nemesius, De Nat. Horn, 
c. 1. It was indeed opposed by Tertullian, and 
other writers of the Western church; but it was 
still believed by many distinguished Christian 
teachers. Trichotomy is chargeable not only 
upon Paracelsus, Boehmen, Weigel, and other 



WORKS OF GOD 



18? 



theosophists, but also upon Spener, and other 
so-called Pietists of the seventeenth century. 
It seems to have been generally believed by 
those of a more deep and spiritual religion, and 
is at present the doctrine of the more evangeli- 
cal part of the Lutheran church. Hahn gives 
the following scheme of the nature of man : — 

(6 t<Ju> ou£pcorto$) (6 t'ico a^pcortoj) 

1. 2. 3. 

Spirit, (Geist, Ili'sfya) Soui, (jpvxn) | BoDY,(<7w,ua) 

Peculiar to man, with Common both to man and 

brute, with the 

(a) Reason (a) Under- same properties 

(b) Will standing as other matter, 

(c) Conscience (b) Desire and the exter- 

(c) Feeling nal senses, 



as principal attributes. 

Those who make this division must hold, ac- 
cordingly, that man has not only, in a higher 
degree, that same understanding, feeling, and 
desiring soul which is seen in brute creatures ; 
but that he possesses also a nature different in 
kind from theirs, and by which he is raised 
above them to the rank of a moral being. — Tr.] 

2. The notion of soul is expressed in all the 
ancient languages by terms which originally 
signify wind, air, breath. And from this fact 
we can learn what were the notions originally 
entertained respecting the soul. However ob- 
scure and indefinite they might have been in 
some respects, the soul was always conceived 
to be that invisible power or being from which 
the body derives its life and activity ; and this 
may be sufficient for practical purposes. Now 
a man lives and moves only so long as he 
breathes. Breath is that mark of life which is 
most obvious to the senses. Hence such terms 
as literally signify breath, were naturally em- 
ployed to denote the life and the soul of man. 
Thus the Hebrew words nn and nntrj, and the 
Greek words, tyvzy an d nvuvua, stand for the 
soul. Cf. s. 9, and especially s. 19, II. The 
word tp'flj, from vai, signifies primarily, spiracu- 
lum, anhelifus ; next vita, as Ps. xlix. 9, 16; 
then animus, as Ps. xvi. 10; also what takes 
place in the soul, feelings, desires, &c. The 
same is true of the Latin word spiritus, and of 
the words animus and anima, both of which 
originally signify aura, flatus, halitus, and seem 
to be the same word as the Greek av£[xo$. 

3. The question respecting the internal nature 
and the quality of the human soul, is one of 
those difficult and obscure questions which can 
never be satisfactorily answered in this life. 
It cannot certainly be decided by anything in 
the Bible. The soul is there merely contrasted 
with the body (^a). The latter, we are in- 
formed, will return to the earth from which God 
created it, while the former will return to God, 



| who gave it, — l. e produced it in a different 
way from the body, Eccles. xii. 7. This is 
said in plain allusion to the account, Gen. L, 
respecting which vide s. 52. So much is per- 
fectly evident that the Bible always distin- 
guishes between soul and body as different 
substances, .and ascribes to each peculiar pro- 
perties and operations ; and this is in full accord- 
ance with the manner in which this subject was 
understood and represented in all the ancient 
world. 

We should mistake very much, however, if 
we should suppose that the ancient Israelites, 
merely because they distinguished widely be- 
tween soul and body, possessed those strict, 
metaphysical ideas of the spirituality or imma- 
teriality of the soul, which are prevalent in the 
modern schools of philosophy. Such ideas are 
by far too refined and transcendent to belong to 
that age; as also are the pure metaphysical 
ideas of the spirituality of God which now pre- 
vail. The whole ancient world, Jews and 
Greeks, (as likewise the savage nations of the 
present day,) supposed everything which moved 
to be animated by a spirit, and this spirit to be a 
substance, different indeed from grosser matter, 
but still somewhat corporeal — a subtle, material 
essence, like the wind, air, or breath. This is 
proved by the ancient languages. Vide No. 2, 
and the remarks on the spirituality of God, s. 19, 
II. See the remarks on this subject in the 
Progr. " Orig. opinionum de immortalitate 
animi apud nationes barbaras," in Scripta Varii 
argumenti, No. iii. 

From what has been said, it is evident, 

(«) That the Bible does in no way support,* 
and indeed that it directly contradicts, that 
gross materialism which denies all substan- 
tiality to the soul, considering it a mere acci- 
dent of matter or of the body. Such an opinion 
respecting the soul was advocated among the 
Jews by the Sadducees, (Acts, xxiii. 8,) and 
among the Greek philosophers originally by 
Dicaearchus, who entirely denied the existence 
of the soul as a substance distinct from the 
body ; Cicero, Tusc. i. 10. This same doctrine 
has been advocated, as is well known, in mo- 
dern times, by Hobbes, Toland, De la Mettrie, 
the author of the " Systeme de la Nature," and 
others. Indeed, an attempt was made, unsuc- 
cessfully it need not be said, to reconcile this 
gross materialism with the holy scriptures, by 
William Coward, an English physician, in his 
"Thoughts on the Soul," London, 1704. Priest- 
ley, too, made a vain attempt to prove from the 
Bible his ideas respecting the soul, which lead 
so decidedly to materialism. But from what 
has been said, it is equally evident, 

(b) That the Bible does not support the mo- 
dern, line-spun, metaphysical theories respect- 
ing the perfect spirituality and immateriality of 



l&i 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the soul. The notion of the ancient world re- 
specting spirit was by no means the same with 
that of our modern metaphysicians. And if the 
question of the perfect immateriality of the soul 
had been left to them, and theologians had stop- 
ped where the Bible does, and omitted these in- 
quiries, the object of which lies far beyond their 
sphere, they would have done wisely. This 
doctrine respecting the immateriality of the soul, 
in the strict philosophical sense of the term, is 
of far less consequence to religion than is com- 
monly supposed. The reason why so much 
importance has been supposed to attach to this 
doctrine is, that it was considered as essential 
to the metaphysical proof of the immortality of 
the soul. But since the immateriality of the 
soul, in the strictest sense, can never be made 
fully and obviously certain, whatever philoso- 
phical arguments may be urged in its favour, 
the proof of immortality should not be built upon 
it. Nor were the fine-spun theories of immate- 
rialism ever resorted to by theologians to prove 
the immortality of the soul, or ascribed by them 
to the Bible, until Hobbes, To! and, De la Met- 
trie, and other materialists, had so perverted 
the doctrine of materialism as to deduce from it 
the destructibility of the soul, or its annihila- 
tion at the death of the body. But, in truth, 
the immortality of the soul does neither depend 
for proof upon its immateriality, nor can be cer- 
tainly deduced from it. It is possible for one 
to doubt whether the strict immateriality of the 
soul can be proved, and yet to be convinced of 
its immortality. The strongest advocates of im- 
materiality must allow that God might annihi- 
late a spirit, however simple its nature may be. 
Why, then, on the other hand, might he not 
make a substance not entirely simple immortal 1 
The immortality of the soul will be examined in 
Book II. s. 149 ; its origin will be investigated 
in this Article, s. 57. 

II. The Destination of Man. 

The question, What is the destination of man? 
is equivalent to the inquiry, What am I, as a 
man? What have las a man to do and expect? 
Or, more definitely: Whither lead those tenden- 
cies by which, without my own choice, I feel my- 
self impelled? What have I to do, in conformity 
with those more deep and essential powers and ca- 
pacities of my nature which cannot be overlooked 
or effaced? and, When I have acted in conformity 
with them, what am I to expect ? 

A feeling of morality — the sentiment of an in- 
delible distinction between right and wrong — 
lies deep in the soul of every man. There is a 
principle implanted in our very nature, by which 
we approve that disposition which corresponds 
to right, and disapprove that which is opposed 
to it. This regard for a moral law is deeply 
inwrought into the heart. Nor is there any- 



thing more fundamental in our constitution than 
this ; and we may presume that the good to 
which this our moral nature points us is the 
\ ery highest good ; and it consists in moral per- 
fection, and that well-being which is connected 
with, and dependent upon, holiness. Increasing 
holiness, then, and the happiness connected with 
it, are the destination of man. Without moral 
excellence no one can be happy; and to seek 
for happiness without it is mean and base. This 
is the doctrine of the scriptures both of the Old 
and New Testament — e. g., Lev. xi. 44 ; xix. 
2; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. xii. 
10, 14, seq. In the creation of the world, God 
must have designed to impart to every creature 
that degree of perfection and of well-being of 
which it should be susceptible. For the attain- 
ment of this great end he employs the most suit- 
able means. This results inevitably from his 
wisdom ; vide s. 24, I. Now, since man is by 
far the noblest of all the living creatures who 
inhabit the earth, and possesses the most supe- 
rior powers, especially of an intellectual kind, 
he must have been created by God for a more 
exalted end, and with a higher destination, than 
that of other creatures. In consequence of the 
greater perfections with which he is endowed, 
he is capable of a higher degree of happiness, 
for the attainment of which he is incited to strive 
by the obligations arising from his moral nature. 

1. The destination of man in this life embraces 
the following particulars : — 

(a) Man possesses the right and the power 
to make use of the other creatures of the earth 
for his own advantage. He is dominus in res 
creatas, Gen. i. 26, seq. ; Psa. viii. This right 
he possesses by virtue of the rational and moral 
nature which God has given him. 

(&) As lord of the other creatures, man accom 
plishes the design of God, or his own destina- 
tion, when, together with his concern for his 
own welfare, he promotes in every possible way 
the comfort and welfare of all his fellow-crea- 
tures, and especially the happiness of his fel- 
low-men, with whom, according to the design 
of God, he stands in the closest and most inti- 
mate relation. Cf. Acts, xvii. 26. To this he 
is also obliged by the divine law, which, whe- 
ther externally revealed, or written on his heart, 
requires him to love his neighbour as himself. 

(c) God must have designed, in endowing 
man with such noble capacities and powers 
that he should cultivate and exercise them ah, 
and employ them for his own advantage and 
that of his fellow-creatures. The more diligent- 
ly and actively, then, we employ the powers 
with which we are gifted by God for the good 
of ourselves and others, — the more we seek to 
develop, cultivate, and by constant exercise to 
strengthen our moral, and indeed our whole na- 
ture, the more conformably shall we live to the 



WORKS OF GOD. 



183 



end for which we were made. Diligence, la- 
bour, and activity, are indispensably requisite to 
the fulfilment of our destination. Even the life 
of paradise is not described by Moses as idle 
and inactive. Man was there to be employed 
in "tilling the ground," Gen. ii. 5, 15. The 
improvement of all our powers and capacities is 
the end of our rational nature; and all the care 
and effort which we may nowbestowupon the im- 
provement of our powers will prepare us richly 
for whatever we are to be or to do hereafter. 
To cultivate and improve our whole nature is 
the duty daily allotted us by God. 

(J) But man should be especially attentive to 
the improvement of his higher nature — his spi- 
rit. Man alone, of all the creatures on the 
earth, possesses the distinguishing excellence 
of a rational soul, and of 'freedom of will. This 
is all which gives his existence an absolute 
worth ; this is that true inborn nobility which 
essentially raises him above the rank of all his 
fellow-creatures upon the earth. By the pro- 
per use of his reason, and of all the higher 
powers of his spirit, man becomes capable of 
a happiness of which no other creature on 
the earth is capable. This higher happiness 
is founded upon the knowledge of truth and 
moral good, and especially upon religion, or 
the knowledge and reverential love of God, of 
which man alone is capable, and which is the 
most powerful means of promoting holiness. 
Vide Introduction, s. 2. seq. New it is a law of 
reason, and so the design and will of God, who 
has given us our reason, that the moral powers 
and faculties of our nature should be developed 
and strengthened by exercise. Consequently, to 
exercise these powers — to do justly, and shew 
mercy, in all the circumstances in which we are 
placed — is the way for us to discharge our pre- 
sent duty, and to testify our love to God. And 
every instance in which we neglect to improve 
the opportunities afforded us of exercising and 
improving our moral powers is a failure in duty, 
which is always attended with hurtful conse- 
quences. 

The book of Ecclesiastes contains many ex- 
cellent, rules for the accomplishment of our des- 
tination upon the earth, most of them in the form 
of proverbs ; as ii. 24 ; iii. 12, seq. ; v. 17 ; ix. 9. 
They may be briefly expressed as follows : — 
Man is happy, and lives according to the end for 
which he was made, "when he wisely enjoys 
the present; when in the right way he seeks for 
peacefulness of soul, cheerfulness, and serenity 
of mind ; when he fulfils his social duties ; when 
he loves and serves God, and is active and dili- 
gent in the employment of his powers; remem- 
bering that he does not exist merely for himself 
and for the sake of selfish enjoyment, but for the 
sake of benefiting others, as far as he is able." 

2. The destination of man beyond the grave. 



That man was not made for the present life alone 
is a doctrine which, although by no means un 
known before the time of Christ, had not as yet 
been clearly and distinctly revealed. But Christ 
and his apostles inculcated this encouraging and 
consoling truth with great earnestness, and made 
it the basis of all their exhortations. Vide 2 
Cor. iv. 18 ; Phil. iii. 20 ; Col. iii. 1—4. It may 
be adopted as a first principle, that the right en- 
joyment and the proper use of the present life is 
the best preparation for happiness in the life to 
come ; and, on the other hand, constant and ear- 
nest effort to prepare for happiness in the future 
world is the best way to be happy here. Cf. 1 
John, iii. 2, seq. In order that we may be pre- 
pared for future happiness, and capable of en- 
joying it, we must be holy. " Without holiness 
no man can see the Lord," Heb. xii. 14. And 
the greater the advances we make in holiness, 
knowledge, and the practice of known truth in 
the present life, the greater will be our happiness 
in the life to come. There is, and must be, a 
close and unalterable connexion between cur 
holiness here and our happiness hereafter. 

Note. — From these observations, which we 
think just and scriptural, we conclude that man 
is placed in the present life, principally, indeed, 
to prepare for the next, but not solely for this 
purpose. And he, it must be allowed, fails of 
fulfilling the whole end of his being, who forgets 
the present in the hope of the future, or who la- 
bours in such a way to prepare for the life to 
come as to render himself inactive and useless 
in this. Future blessedness is only the conti- 
nuation and perfection of that which begins here. 
And we must now begin to be active, holy, and 
happy, that we may continue to be so in a more 
perfect manner hereafter. The present is the 
time to sow ; the harvest will come in the future 
world. He therefore who does not sow here 
cannot expect to reap beyond the grave. It is 
a part of the end of our being to be happy even 
in the present life, however inferior may be the 
happiness we can obtain here to that which we 
hope for in heaven. Our life upon the earth is 
an end as well as a means. And if we earnestly 
seek to do the will of God, the present life, even 
in itself considered, is not worthless, though its 
value is infinitely raised by the certainty of a 
future life. In regard to the proper use of the 
time now allotted us, we have a pattern in the 
example of those pious men who are recom- 
mended in the Bible for our imitation ; and espe- 
cially in the example of Jesus, which, even in 
this respect, is the most perfect of all. These 
hints on the destination of man are carried out 
in Spalding's " Bestimmung des Menschen;" 
Leipzig, 1791 ; and in the Essay of Tollner, 
"1st das gegenwartige Leben nur eine Pru- 
fungszeit'?' , in his " Theologishen Untersu- 
chungen," th. i. s. 402, f. Cicero, in his Book, 



184 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



"Be frnihus bonorum et malorum," states the 
theories of the various schools among the Greeks 
respecting the summum bonum, or the finis bono- 
rum. Seneca calls the destination of a thing, 
or ot a man, finis naturae suae, suum cujusque 
(rei sive hominis) bonum. To attain or fulfil 
one's destiny, he calls, adfinem naturae suae per- 
venire. Sive, attingerejtnem naturae suae, Ep. 76. 

SECTION LII. 

OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE 
HUMAN RACE. 

I. General Remarks. 

Most nations have some ancient traditions re- 
specting the origin of the human race, which, 
however, differ widely from each other. Many 
of the heathen nations believed that their fore- 
fathers, or the human race, sprung originally 
either from the earth, rocks, trees, eggs, teeth, 
or other inanimate things, or that they were 
produced by wild beasts. Vide the passages 
cited in Meiners' " Geschichte der Menschheit," 
s. 245. There were comparatively few of the 
ancient heathen nations who supposed that the 
human race, or particular nations, were derived 
from gods, heroes, or giants; and even these 
differed very much from one another in their ac- 
counts ; some supposing that the first men were 
brought forth in the way of natural generation 
by these superior beings ; and others, that they 
were only formed by the gods from some inani- 
mate material, earth, stones, &c, and then en- 
dowed with life. 

In the first and second chapters of Genesis, 
Moses has preserved the ancient traditions of 
the Hebrew nation with respect to the origin of 
man. These traditions are substantially the 
same with those of other oriental nations, and 
they are uniformly followed by the other sacred 
writers. As here recorded by Moses, they 
breathe the very spirit of the ancient world, al- 
though they exhibit more truth, completeness, 
and connexion, than are found in the traditions 
and fables of other nations respecting the origin 
of our race. 

According to the Mosaic account, the whole 
human race is derived from one stock, as Paul 
expresses it, i% lvo$ afyeoWoj jtav 8$vo$ di^-purtov, 
Acts, xvii. 26. The first man, Adam, was 
formed from the earth, Gen. ii. and iii. ; Eccles. 
xii. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 47; o rtpw^oj a^pcortoj ix yijj, 
%o'Cx6s. Eve was formed afterwards, and from 
Adam, Genesis, ii. 18, seq. ; 1 Cor. xi. 8, yvvq 
i% dvSpoj. Some modern investigators of nature 
have supposed that the distinction found between 
the races of men cannot be accounted for on the 
supposition that they all have proceeded from 
one stock. They have conjectured, accordingly, 
that many different pairs of men were originally 



made. That climate, manner of life, means of 
subsistence, &c, could have produced all the 
variety which is perceived among the different 
races of men is what they will not allow. But 
others affirm that all the arguments adduced in 
support of this hypothesis are unsatisfactory ; 
and contend, with strong reasons, for a contrary 
opinion. Among these is Forster. Cf. his 
" Bemerkungen auf seinen Reise um die Welt," 
s. 226—254; Berlin, 1783. Also Kant, Ueber 
die verschiedenen Racen der Menschen; K6- 
nigsberg, 1775, 4to; Blumenbach, De generis 
humani varietate nativa; GottingaB, 1776, 8vo. 
Other nations beside the Hebrews have believed 
that the human race descended from one original 
pair. Nor is it necessary to suppose that they 
derived their belief on this point from the ac- 
count of Moses. The supposition that the whole 
human race has descended from one pair might 
naturally arise from various circumstances — 
from the gradual peopling of countries round 
about — from the old family tradition, that for- 
merly the number of the human race was com- 
paratively small — and from the observation of 
the large and rapid increase of single families. 
Besides, these other nations might have derived 
much of what they believed respecting the ori- 
gin of man by direct oral tradition from the 
earliest times. 

\Note. — The question so much discussed 
among anthropologists respecting the different 
races of men, and their descent from one ori- 
ginal pair, is of very considerable interest both 
to the theologian and the philanthropist. It has 
an essentia] bearing upon the doctrines of in- 
herited corruption, and of the atonement. But 
its most important bearing is upon our duty to 
a very numerous race, who have long been ex 
eluded from the rights and privileges of frater- 
nity in the human family. Lactantius has well 
said, (Div. Inst. v. 10,) Si ab uno homine, quern 
Deus finxit, omnes orimur, certe consanguine! 
sumus ; et ideo maximum scelus putandum est, 
odisse hominem vel nocentem. And this prac- 
tical influence of the Christian doctrine of the 
consanguinity of all nations may be seen in the 
extensive abolition of negro slavery by Chris- 
tian nations. 

It deserves to be noticed that this scriptural 
doctrine, which is so connected with the highest 
interests of humanity, has been successfully vin- 
dicated on the ground of physiology against the 
ingenious and plausible attacks of those who 
make equal opposition to the Christian scriptures 
and to African freedom. In addition to the 
works recommended by our author, we may 
mention that of H. F. Link, " Die Urwelt und 
das Alterthum ;" Berlin, 1821. There is one 
physiological argument, which, it would seem, 
must be conclusive against the supposition that 
the negro belongs wholly to ? lifferent kind from 



WORKS OF GOD. 



185 



the white — viz., the offspring of the mixture of 
different genera cannot propagate their own spe- 
cies. We know this is not the case with regard 
to the children which are born from the min- 
gling of the white and negro races. The essen- 
tial characteristic marks of the human kind are 
the rational and moral powers with which man 
is endowed ; and those in whom we can find the 
least traces of these are to be regarded by us 
as brethren, bearing with us something of the 
imago of God, however low the degree in which 
they may possess these powers, and however 
widely they may differ from us in the incidental 
circumstances of colour, feature, and tempera- 
ment.— Tr,] 

We must here notice the opinion that men 
existed before Adam, who is spoken of in the 
Mosaic account. The belief in Prasadamites 
has been embraced for various reasons; partly 
to escape some supposed natural difficulties of 
the kind just mentioned, partly in support of 
various theological and historical hypotheses, 
and sometimes for both reasons united. Most 
of those who have entertained this opinion, 
however different their views respecting the 
Prseadamites themselves, have appealed to 
Moses and other sacred writers for support, or 
at least have endeavoured to shew that they be- 
lieved in nothing inconsistent with the scriptural 
account. But they evidently do the greatest 
violence to the passages which they cite. The 
plain, scriptural representation is that which we 
have given. This hypothesis was first raised to 
notice by Isaac Peyrere, who in 1655 published 
his book styled " Prseadamitee.''' He pretended 
to find his PrEeadamites in Rom. v. 12 — 14. The 
heathen, according to him, are the Prasadamites, 
being, as he supposed, created on the same day 
with the beasts, and those whose creation is 
mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Adam, 
the father of the Jews, was not created until a 
century later, and is the one who is mentioned 
in the second chapter. Cf. the works cited by 
Morus, p. 95, s. 1, note 1. Since the time of 
Peyrere, this hypothesis has been exhibited more 
connectedly; and has been asserted independ- 
ently of the authority of Moses ; or, in other 
words, it has been asserted that the human race 
is older than Moses represents it. Vide Irwing, 
" Versuche iiber den Ursprung der Erkenntniss 
der Wahrheit und der Wissenschaften ;" Ber- 
lin, 1781, 8vo. Cf. Brun, " Vergieichung der 
griechischen und romischen Nachrichten von 
dem altesten Zustande der Menschen mit den 
hebraischen," in Gabler's "Theologischen 
Journal," b. v. st. 1, s. 50. u. f. 

II. The Mosaic Account. 

There are two accounts of the creation of man 
recorded by Moses. The first is very brief, 
given in general terms, in connexion with the 
24 



history of the creation of the world, on the sixth 
day of which man was formed, Gen. i. 26 — 30. 
The second account is more full, and stands by 
itself, Gen. ii. 4, seq. In this second account, 
the creation of the world and the state of the 
earth before man was placed upon it, are again 
cursorily mentioned, while in ver. 7 the creation 
of man himself is more fully detailed. It is not 
improbable that in the composition of these first 
chapters of Genesis, Moses may have had be- 
fore him some written records handed down 
from the patriarchal age, and he may perhaps 
have inserted them, word for word, in his own 
history. Vide s. 49, I. According to this sup- 
position, we have here inserted one of these ori- 
ginal records, extending from Gen. ii. 4 to iii. 
24, and forming a complete whole, which is se- 
parated from what precedes by the appropriate 
title, "This is the history of the heavens and 
the earth," ver. 4. What favours the supposi- 
tion that Moses drew from written records in 
composing the first part of Genesis, and that he 
even preserved them in the very language in 
which they were written, is the fact, that in 
each of these distinct fragments the Supreme 
Being is uniformly designated by a different 
title, — in one, by the name criSs, in another, by 
the name rrfcv, and in a third, by the combined 
name cn^x n^*. This was first observed by 
Astriic and Michaelis, and is often made use of 
by Eichhorn in his " Urgeschichte." Cf. s. 49, 
and the works of Herder, Eichhorn, Gabler, 
Paulus, Ilgen, Vater, and others. But Eich- 
horn and llgen have spoken with far too much 
confidence respecting the sources from which 
Moses drew. The subject is not so well under- 
stood as to allow of so much confidence. Vide 
Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen 
Weisheit, th. ii. s. 456, 2te Ausg. These ac- 
counts must now be separately considered. 
Vide Morus, p. 96, s. 4. 

1. Observations on the first account, Genesis, 
i. 26—30. 

Here, and in other parts of the history of the 
creation, God is said to speak. This is a repre- 
sentation by which the exertion of the divine 
will, or the determination of God, is intelligibly 
expressed, and corresponds with the whole pic- 
torial nature of the account. Cf. Genesis, vi. 
5; xi. 6, 7. After the production of so many 
creatures of the earth, God at length created 
man, the noblest and most excellent of them 
all — the lord of the lower creation. 

d^n, in the first chapter, is not a proper, but a 
collective noun — man. We might suppose, from 
this passage, if the account in the second chap- 
ter were not more explicit, that the first human 
pair were created at the same time. The words, 
urvro i:rSv2, should not be distinguished as 
they have sometimes been. The two words 
thus collocated signify, an exact or a very similar 
Q2 



18G 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



image; as chap. v. 1, 3, The primary sig- 
nification of dSx is, a shadow, as Psalm xxxix. 
7 ; then, a shadowy image, a likeness. In what 
this divine likeness consists, — whether simply 
in the dominion over the rest of the creation, 
mentioned immediately after, or in the posses- 
sion of higher faculties, will be investigated, s. 
53. The dominion of man over, animals here 
spoken of denotes merely his right to use and 
employ them for his own advantage. The 
phrase, God blessed them, (ver. 28,) is to be un- 
derstood as ab'ove, in ver. 22; he gave them 
fruilfulness, the power to propagate their species. 
The fruits of the tree and of the field, and not 
the flesh of animals, constituted the original food 
of man as well as of beast. Vide ver. 29, 30, 
where it is said that God gave to them the pro- 
duce of the earth for food. Cf. ii. 16. Many 
reasons may be given for this. Had it not been 
so, there would have been ground to apprehend 
that man might have destroyed whole species 
of animals, while they were yet few in number, 
&c. Vide Michael is, in loc. The fact that 
man at first fed upon fruits and herbs is con- 
firmed by the traditions of other ancient nations. 
They uniformly represent the practice of taking 
the life and shedding the blood of living crea- 
tures as a cruel and frightful practice, which 
could not have existed in paradise, or in the 
golden age of the youthful world, when univer- 
sal friendship and happy concord reigned among 
the creatures of God. Hence, in the prophetic de- 
scriptions of that happy age which should again 
return to the world, it is expressly said that one 
beast shall not destroy another ; " the lion shall 
eat straw like the ox," Isa. xi. 7, coll. ver. 6 — 
9. The same trait recurs in the description 
which the Greeks give of the Saturnian age. 
Vide Plutarch, rtspi <yapjeo<j>aytaj. Ovid, too, de- 
scribes the vetus aurea setas as happy fxtibus 
arboreis et herbis ; necpolluit ora cruore, Met. xv. 
96, seq. Vide Cierici Comment, in Genesin. 
We find, therefore, no intimation that beasts 
were slain until after man had forfeited paradise, 
Genesis, iii. 21. Shortly after, they appear to 
have been offered by men in sacrifice to God, 
Gen. iv. 4. Noah was the first who received 
a distinct command to use flesh as well as vege- 
tables for his sustenance, Gen. ix. 3. And it is 
in general true, that rude nations eat for a long 
time only herbs and fruits, and come slowly 
into the use of animals for food, even after they 
have been in the habit of slaying them, and 
using their skins for clothing. This can be 
easily accounted for, when we consider that ani- 
mal food, as then prepared, before fire and salt 
came into common use, must have been ex- 
tremely coarse and disgusting. We gather from 
Homer, that the use of salt on flesh could not 
have been very common in his day, since he 
always gives it the epithet divine, and describes 



it as a gift of the gods. The Caribeans at th*» 
present day eat flesh without salt. 

2. Observations on the second account, Genesis, 
ii. 4—24. 

(«) After the mention, in ver. 5, 6, of the 
means of subsistence which God had provided 
for man from the vegetable kingdom, the writer 
passes now, in ver. 7, to the creation of man 
himself. " God formed man from the dust of 
the earth," niD'iNrrjp "isy — a very natural idea, 
readily suggested by analogy, and in itself pro- 
bable. The decay of man, and the mouldering 
of his body to dust and earth, gave rise to the 
phrase, to become dust and earth. And so dust 
and earth were naturally regarded as the ele- 
ments of the human body ; and to describe death 
they said, ip ivi) -»sjr, to return to the dust, from 
which we were taken; Psalm civ. 29; Genesis^ 
iii. 19 ; Job, x. 9 ; Eccles. xii. 7. Cf. Job T 
xxxiii. 6. The body of the first man, which 
God had formed from the earth, was entirely 
finished before it was endowed with life. Here 
again the description is rendered natural and 
probable from the analogy of the human body 
when first deprived of life. The form and 
structure remain complete after life has depart- 
ed ; and the body moulders slowly into dust and 1 
clay. Thus, on the other hand, the body firsts 
was formed under the plastic hand of the Artist; 
and the breath of life was not imbreathed until 
it was finished. In these two respects there is 
a great resemblance between this account and 
the Grecian fable of Prometheus, who first 
formed a man from earth and water, and after- 
wards endowed it w T ith life through the coope- 
ration of the Deity. Vide Ovid, Met. i. 82. 

The din is here not only the common appel- 
lative for man, but also the proper distinguish- 
ing name of the first man. The first man is 
called, by way of eminence, the man. The 
word is not derived from ehn, red, (supposed by 
some to refer to the red colour of the counte- 
nance, or to the red earth, from which man was 
formed, as the Rabbins and Josephus (Antiq. i. 
1) suggest.) It is rather derived from nriN, the 
earth, and so describes man as earthbom, yyfsvrtf. 
Plato says, in his Polilicus, 'Ex yij$ yap avifiiCxs- 
xovto Tidvtac. 

" And he breathed into his nostrils the breath 
of life," D^n r\W) vwa n?M. God vivified the pre- 
viously lifeless body of man. Breath is the most 
obvious and certain indication of life, and breath- 
ing is performed principally through the nose; 
and hence this whole figurative representation 
When God gives life to his creatures he is sait 
to breath out his breath, or to breathe it into them 
When he causes them to die, he is said to tak^ 
away their breath; as Ps. civ. 29, 30. 

Nothing is expressly said in this passage re- 
specting the rational soul, its indivisibility, and 
immortality. That only which is obvious, and 



WORKS OF GOD. 



187 



perceptible by the external senses, is here de- 
scribed ; as it is in general the object of Moses 
in this passage to describe the origin of the 
world only as far as it falls under the cogni- 
zance of the senses. Cf. the remarks on rvn, s. 
51, I. iiT! V/Di, is, a living creature, or being. 

(b) In ver. 9, and ver. 16, 17, the writer 
speaks of the means of subsistence appointed 
for man, from the vegetable kingdom, (Vide No. 
I.,) and particularly the tree of life, and the tree 
of knowledge of good and evil, or of the distinc- 
tion of good and evil; which were found in the 
midst of the garden, (|jn -pn?.) They are men- 
tioned here to prepare the way for what follows 
in the third chapter. Trees of life denote with 
the Hebrews such trees as possess a healing, 
life-giving power, arbores salutares, whether the 
virtue belongs to the fruit, leaf, bark, or root; 
as Prov. iii. 18. We say, officinal herbs or trees. 
The design of the tree of life was, to perpetuate 
human life, Gen. iii. 22. While man continued 
in paradise, his body was endued with immor- 
tality, which, however, was not effected in an 
immediate and miraculous way, but by a natural 
means, divinely appointed — viz., the fruit of a 
tree, in partaking of which human life might be 
prolonged. Hence the tree of life is described 
as planted in heaven, the abode of immortality, 
Rev. xxii. 2; ii. 7. The Greeks, too, speak of 
food of which no mortal can taste, and which 
the immortals alone enjoy. Homer, Odys. v. 
197, 199; II. xix. 38,39. 

The description which Moses gives of the 
tree of life would naturally lead to the conclusion 
that the other tree which stood opposite was a 
hurtful, poisonous tree, destructive of life; and 
this is confirmed from ver. 17, "The day thou 
eatestof it thou shaltdie." Cf. chap. iii. This 
account too, as well as those which have pre- 
ceded it, is very probable and natural. There 
are injurious plants and poisonous trees by which 
we are made sick and destroyed ; there are also 
useful trees, which impart health and prolong 
life. Such trees there were in the age of para- 
dise, conferring perpetual health and immor- 
tality ; and also a single poisonous tree, placed 
in the garden for the trial of man. Cf. Gen. iii. 
3. But why is it called the tree of the know- 
ledge of good and evil? Because by means of 
this tree man was to learn prudence, to be made 
cautious and circumspect; and because it was 
intended to put his wisdom to the test. Cf. 
Morus, p. 97, s. 6. If he did not eat of the 
tree it would be well for him, and he would act 
wisely and circumspectly ; if he ate of the fruit 
of the tree, it would be to his hurt; and by the 
eyil he would suffer he would become wise, and 
learn in future to be more circumspect ; he would 
then know from his experience the unhappy 
consequences resulting from transgression of 



the divine command. Cf. Gen. iii. 22. The 
phrase, to know, or to distinguish good and evil, 
(or, as Horace expresses it, curvo posse digno- 
scere rectum, Ep. ii. 2, 44,) always signifies in 
the ancient languages to be or become wise, to 
acquire judgment. So frequently in Homer — e. 
g., Odys. xviii. 227, 228; xx. 309, 310. Cf. 
Book ii. s. 75. 

(c) In ver. 19, 20, we have the following 
points — viz., 

(a) Adam lived at first among the beasts; and 
they were, so to speak, brought before him by 
God. They were more nearly related to him 
than any other part of the material creation by 
which he was surrounded. He had more in 
common with them than with inanimate things. 
In paradise the beasts were not timid and wild, 
but lived with man in familiarity and confidence. 
Cf. Isaiah, xi. 6 — 9. Nor is this representation 
of the original state of man confined to the Jews ; 
it is found among other nations, and is more- 
over confirmed to our present observation. We 
find even now, that in regions entirely uninha- 
bited by man, and where his persecutions have 
never been felt by beasts and birds, they are 
tame and unsuspicious, though elsewhere known 
as wild and timid. Cook describes the tropical 
birds which he saw in the uninhabited islands 
of the South Sea — the man of war, and other 
birds which are commonly very shy — as so 
tame that they could be caught by the hand. 
When the traveller passes through the wilds of 
South America, which are seldom trodden by 
human footsteps, he is not shunned by the most 
timid birds, and can catch even partridges as he 
passes along by a mere noose fastened upon the 
end of a stick. Cf. the work, "Zur Kunde 
fremder Lander und Volker," b. ii. s. 152, ex- 
tracted from the " Lettres Edifiantes." 

(j3) As man was conversant with the animals 
about him, and was soon able to distinguish 
them one from another, he gave them names, 
which appear to have been the sounds by which 
he called them around him, and sometimes in 
imitation of the sounds which they themselves 
made. In this way it is easy to account for the 
transition of man from his original speechless- 
ness to the first use of language. We notice 
the same process in children. Plato observes, 
very justly, in his Politicus, "that in the Satur 
nian age men were very familiar with animals, 
and even conversed with them, (as appears in 
Gen. iii., and as is seen in children ;) and that in 
this intercourse they learned much wisdom ; and 
by giving attention to their nature and habitudes 
saw much which they could turn to their own 
advantage." Hence the great influence which 
the fables of iEsop had in ancient times, and the 
deep impression which they still make upon 
children. 



188 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



(y) But although every animal had its mate, 
roan did not find among them all a companion 
for himself. His innate propensity to the social 
and conjugal state was thus more strongly ex- 
cited ; ver. 18, 20, ad finem. » Man only," it is 
said, " had not as yet -mis n$." -wj? signifies, 
properly, an assistant, companion; as Ezekiel, 
xii. 14. fiJM is rendered by Luther, die urn ihn 
ware; in English version, meet for him ; Sept. 
xai avtov and 6/xotoj avtq. 

(d) Creation of the wife of Adam, ver. 21 — 24. 

This passage has greatly perplexed com- 
mentators, who have undertaken to reconcile it 
with the notions of modern times, with which 
it does not at all agree. Eichhorn (p. 182, 183 
of the work above cited) explains it in this 
way — " Adam and his wife were created at the 
same time, but at first lived apart. The conju- 
gal impulse of Adam was excited ; he fell into 
a sleep, and dreamed that he was divided into 
halves. When he awoke, Eve stood before 
him." The same explanation in substance is 
given by Zacharia, in his Bib. Theol. th. ii. s. 
120. But what unprejudiced reader can see any 
foundation for all this in the Mosaic account 1 ? 
Moses evidently teaches that Eve was created 
after Adam, and taken by God from Adam ; and 
Paul says, " Adam was first formed, and then 
Eve," 1 Tim. ii. 13. For this part of the Mo- 
saic narrative, as well as for the former parts, 
there is some analogy, which, however, must be 
more evident to the orientalist than to us, since 
the subserviency of the woman to the man is 
more acknowledged in the East than in the 
West. The orientalist believes the woman to 
be indeed of his own nature, but still secondary 
and subject to him ; though this place by no 
means teaches her subjection as a slave, as 
afterwards, when the age of paradise was over, 
Gen. iii. 16 — a supposition inconsistent with 
the idea of the golden age. Now, because the 
woman is of the same nature as man, she is de- 
scribed as taken from him. Hence the deep 
love he feels for her, and the intimate union be- 
tween man and wife. Hence, too, (viz., from 
the fact that she was taken from him,) the supe- 
riority of the man over the woman. That this 
explanation is entirely in the spirit of the Bible 
is clear from the argument which Paul deduces 
from this place — " For the man is not of the wo- 
man ; but the woman of the man. Neither was 
the man created for the woman; but the woman 
for the man," 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9. This truth, then, 
that husband and wife stand in the closest con- 
nexion with each other, while still the wife is 
necessarily dependent upon her husband, could 
not be made more intelligible and impressive 
than by the account here given, which repre- 
sents the woman as created after man, taken 
from him, and made out of his side. yS>; in this 



place does not signify rib, but side, half, as com- 
monly in Hebrew and Arabic — e. g., Exod. 
xxvi. 26, 27, 35, seq. Sept, 7t%£vpd — " The place 
was closed up with flesh" — i. e., the body was 
healed and made whole. As pain was not known 
in paradise, it was necessary that Adam should 
be put into a deep sleep (ver. 21) while all this 
took place — in such a way, however, as to al- 
low him an obscure consciousness of what was 
done, (ver. 23.) It is frequently the case, when 
something befals us in sleep which makes a 
deep impression on the senses, that, without 
waking at the time, we have a sort of percep- 
tion, which we obscurely recollect when after- 
wards awake. cy~n nsr, this time. " Now I 
see at last a being like myself, one of my own 
species," referring to ver. 20, ad finem. Adam 
now gives to his companion a name, as he had 
formerly done to the beasts — viz., nt?x (like the 
vira of the ancient Latins,) because she was 
formed from man, (c\s.) When afterwards 
she had borne a child, he called her name mn, 
because she then became the mother of the human 
race, ("Tr 1 ?^ dx;) Gen. iii. 20. In ver. 24, it is 
not Adam who speaks ; for he knew nothing as 
yet about father and mother. The historian 
here deduces a practical inference from what 
had been said. In Matt. xix. 5, where q ypaq»J 
is to be supplied before tfrts, this passage is 
cited : "The relation between husband and wife 
is the most intimate which can exist, and, ac- 
cording to the design of God, indissoluble. It 
is more irrefragable than the relation between 
parents and children; whence (so Christ con- 
cludes) to separate from one's wife is a crime 
of worse desert than to renounce father and mo- 
ther." The particular truths and inferences to 
be drawn from the whole Mosaic narrative are 
well exhibited by Moms, p. 96—98, s. 4—8. 
Cf. Matt. xix. ; 1 Cor. xi. When it is said they 
shall be one flesh, it means, they shall be regarded 
as one body, one person. 

Note. — The first abode of men is commonly 
called paradise, rtapaSftcoj, (cf. Morus, p. 96, s. 
4, n. 1,) because the LXX. thus translate the 
Hebrew p, which is used in ver. 8 of this narra- 
tive, and in other parts of the Bible, and are fol- 
lowed in this by the Latin versions. The word 
is of Persian origin, (in the Hebrew form 
D-n9,) and signifies, in Eccl. ii. 5, and in other 
texts where it occurs, not any small garden, but 
a large portion of land, a park, furnished with 
trees, and wild beasts, and water, for the pur- 
poses of hunting and fishing; as Xenophon de- 
scribes it, (Econ. iv. 13. The name of paradise 
was afterwards given to the abode of the bless- 
ed ; but the original abode of man was called 
by this name, by way of eminence, after the 
example of the LXX., by Sirach, Josephus, 
Philo smd other Grecian Jews. 



WORKS OF GOD. 



189 



The description of the garden is given, Gen. 
ii. 8 — 15. Eden was not the name of paradise 
itself, but paradise was a spot in the extensive 
territo-'-v of Eden. Vide ver. 8, coll. ver. 10. 
If the situation of the territory of Eden is to be 
determined by the names of the four rivers men- 
tioned in the Mosaic account, and if by these ri- 
vers we are to understand those to which the same 
names were anciently given, and some of which 
retain them to the present day, we may fix upon 
the region where Armenia, Ghilan, Dailem, and 
Chorasan now lie. There are no means, how- 
ever, by which we can determine the particular 
spot in this region where the garden of delights 
was situated. Eden then comprehended all the 
countries which extend from Euphrates (ma) 
and Tigris (S"£in) to Aras or Araxes, (|itf>3, 
which rises in Armenia and flows into the Cas- 
pian Sea,) and Oxus (pTva), on the east of the 
Caspian. 

The fables and traditions of the Asiatic na- 
tions agree very generally in placing the first 
habitation of men, and the cradle of the human 
race, in the neighbourhood of Caucasus and the 
Caspian sea, and the valleys which extend side- 
ways from Caucasus, though they differ very 
much in assigning more definitely the particular 
spot where man first dwelt. Vide Zimmerman, 
Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, band 
iii. s. 250, and Meiners, Geschichte der Mensch- 
heit, s. 7. Some learned men, however, re- 
lying upon other Asiatic traditions, not in the 
least supported by the Bible, suppose that the 
earth was first peopled from Southern Asia ; and 
so they fix upon other rivers more favourable to 
their hypotheses than those before mentioned, 
to water their territory of Eden, although they 
nearly all allow the river Euphrates to be one 
intended. Buttman sided with these in his 
"Aeltesten Erdkunde des Morgenlanders ;" 
Berlin, 1803, 8vo. In this work he represents, as 
is common at the present time, the whole nar- 
rative of Moses as fabulous. He endeavours to 
render it probable that the whole territory ex- 
tending from the Persian Gulf eastwards to the 
Peninsula of Malacca, was the region intended 
by Eden ; that the Ganges was one of the four 
rivers, and that these original habitations were 
afterwards placed by the Hebrews more in their 
own vicinity. Among the older works on this 
subject, cf. Reland, De situ paradisi, in his 
"Diss. Miscell." t. i. Bochart, Geog. Sacra, 
and Michaelis, Spiceleg. t. ii. In the seven- 
teenth century, Olaus Rudbeck, a Swede, wrote 
a book called " Atlantica," in which he placed 
paradise in Sweden. In the nineteenth century, 
Dr. Hasse, in his " Entdeckung im Felde der 
filtesten Erd-und Menschengeschichte," endea- 
voured to prove that Eden was the north of Eu- 
rope, and that paradise was Prussia. 



SECTION LIII. 

OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN WHICH MAN WAS 
CREATED. 

I. History of opinions respecting the Image of 
God. 

No one doubts that the image cf God denotes 
in general a likeness of God, (s. 52.) But the 
opinions of theologians have always been differ- 
ent respecting the particular points of resem- 
blance which Moses intended to express by this 
phrase. And this is not strange, since Moses 
does not explain what he means by it, and it is 
used in very different significations in the Bible ; 
which is a fact that has not been sufficiently 
noticed. The common opinion is, that this 
phrase denotes certain excellences which man 
originally possessed, but which he lost, in pari 
at least, by the fall. The principal texts which 
are cited in behalf of this opinion are, Gen. i. 
26, coll. ii. 15, seq. ; and from the New Testa- 
ment, Col. iii. 10, coll. Ephes. iv. 24, where a 
renevjal after the image of God is mentioned ; 
which is understood to mean a restoration of this 
image, implying that man must have lost it; also 
2 Cor. xi. 3. Against this common opinion it 
may be objected, that the image of God is de- 
scribed in many passages as existing after the 
fall, and as still discoverable in men ; as Gen. 
ix. 6, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man 
shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God 
made he man ;" also James, iii. 9, " With the 
tongue we curse men, who are made after the si- 
militude of God;'' 1 also 1 Cor. xi. 6. 7, ob-w— 
slxuiv — Qsov V7tup%av. Here also belongs the 
passage often cited in behalf of the opposite opi- 
nion, Gen. v. 1 — 3, where it is said, that Go& 
created man in his own image; and that Adam 
begot a son in his own likeness, and after hit 
image; from which it must appear, that Seth. 
being made in the likeness of Adam, must havt 
had the same image of God, whatever it was, 
which Adam possessed, 'rhis phrase, then, 
evidently, is not always used in che same sensn 
in the Bible. And the fault of interpreters anr» 
theologians has been, that they have overiooVjw 
the different meanings In which this phrase ib 
used, and have selected one only, wnich tr^y 
have endeavoured to elicit from ah the texts in 
which the phrase occurs. 

As to the question, in wiiat -consists that ex- 
cellence of man, denoted oy the phrase, the 
image of God, we find, 

1. Even the oldest C'nrisstian writers, the ec- 
clesiastical fathers, were very much divided. 
This is acknowledged by Gregory of Nyssa, in 
an Essay devoted to this subject. Theodoret 
confesses, that he is not able to determine ex- 
actly in what this image consisted, Quaest. xx. 



190 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



in Genesin. Epiphanius thinks that the thing 
cannot be determined, Haeres. 30. Tertullian 
placed it in the innate powers and faculties of the 
human soul, especially in the freedom of choice 
between good and evil, Adv. Marc. ii. 5, 6. 
Philo placed it in the vgv$, the rational soul, and 
associated with this phrase his Platonic notions 
respecting the original ideas in the divine mind 
(Xoyos), of which the visible man is a copy, De 
Opif. Mundi. The human race, according to 
him, is indeed degenerate, but yet has traces of 
its relationship with the Father of all ; for rtaj 
dv^pu>7to<; xatfa /.ihv tffjv Sidvoiav axsaoTfaiQsicfi 
kdycD, tq$ juowcapuxs <J>vfftcoj ixfxaydov, ri drtoffrta^uct 
ri artavyati fia, ysyovu>$. Origen, (Ilfpt ap%tl>v, 
iii. 6,) Gregory of Nyssa, and Leo the Great, 
were of the same general opinion on this sub- 
ject as Tertullian. According to these ecclesi- 
astical fathers, this image of God consists prin- 
cipally in the rectitude and freedom of the will, 
and in the due subordination of the inferior 
powers of the soul to the superior. The im- 
mortality of the body is also included by Leo 
and many others. Epiphanius blames Origen 
for teaching, that Adam lost the image of God, 
which, he says, the Bible does not affirm. He 
knows and believes, " quod in cunetis hominibus 
imago Dei permaneat," Ep. ad Joannem, in 
Opp. Hieronymi, t. i. Most of the Grecian and 
Latin fathers distinguish between imago and 
similitudo Dei. By the image of God, they 
say, is meant the original constitution (Jnlage) 
— the innate powers and faculties (potentia na- 
turalis, Scholast.) of the human soul. By the 
similitude of God, is meant, that actual resem- 
blance to him which is acquired by the exercise 
of these powers. I shall not dwell upon the 
subtleties of the schoolmen, which are still pre- 
valent to some degree in the Romish church. 
Vide Petavius. [For an account of these, vide 
also Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 76.] 

2. Nor are modern theologians at all more 
unanimous. The most important opinions enter- 
tained on this subject in modern times admit of 
the following classification — viz., 

(a) Some find this image in the rational soul,- 
like Philo, who, as before remarked, supposed 
it to consist, not in bodily advantages, but in 
the wDj, the higher reason alone, De Opif. 
Mundi, p. 15, 45; and like many of the fathers. 
To be sure, this higher rational and moral nature 
of man lies at the foundation of all his other ex- 
cellences, and indeed is essential to their very 
existence. But, according to the representation 
of the Bible, this rational soul is not so much 
itself this image of God, as the foundation or 
source of those excellences in which it does 
more properly consist. 

(b) Others find it in the dominion of man over 
ail the creatures of the earth; because this do- 
minion is mentioned in immediate connexion 



with the image of God in Gen. i. 26. So think 
Socinus and his followers, and also many Armi- 
nians. According to both of these theories, the 
image of God must be allowed still to exist in 
man. This will be farther considered hereafter. 

(c) Others find it in the moral perfections of 
our nature which we have lost by the fall. These 
writers refer to the texts in the epistles to the Co- 
lossians and Ephesians, and in accordance with 
these explain the passages in Genesis relating 
to this subject. This is the most common the- 
ory. In the language of the Apol. Conf. Augs., 
the image of God consists in certior notitia Dei 
et probitas. Theologians define it, justitia ori- 
ginalis sive sanctitas, original uprightness or 
holiness. 

(d) Those who find difficulties with all these 
opinions, endeavour to relieve the subject by di- 
viding the image of God into a physical and a 
moral image ; or into an essential and an inci- 
dental image. The latter, they suppose, is now 
lost, or exists in a less degree ; the former is still 
possessed by man. 

II. Biblical uses of the phrase, " The Image of God," 

1. We cannot expect to find any strict or de- 
finite notion attached to this phrase in the an- 
cient Mosaic account. The general idea of di- 
vinity, greatness, precedence, is all that Moses 
intends to express when he uses it; insignia 
dignitas ac prscstantia hominis. Morus, p. 103, 
s. 18. Any one who possesses excellence and 
dignity superior to other men, is said, in this 
widest sense, to bear the image of God, as 1 Cor. 
xi. 7; Ps. lxxxii. 6. Moses, however, places 
it principally and prominently in that part of 
this superiority which is most obvious to the 
senses — viz., the superiority of man over irra- 
tional creatures, and his dominion over the 
earth. By this limitation, however, the other 
excellences of our nature are not excluded ; but, 
on the contrary, those powers and faculties 
from which this more obvious superiority re- 
sults must be included in the idea of Moses, 
But while Moses, in the use of this phrase, had 
in his eye that superior excellence of man by 
which he is lord of the earth, he does not teach 
anywhere that man lost this entirely by the fall ; 
but, on the contrary, implies that he afterwards 
possessed it. Vide No. I. Princes and judges 
are called by Moses gods, and sons of God, on 
account of the superiority and dominion which 
they possess. Vide s. 17. For the same rea- 
son man is king and god of this lower ere? 
tion, which honours him as the image of Gou. 
David probably used the phrase in this wider 
sense in Ps. viii. 6 — 9, where he explains and 
paraphrases Gen. i. 26, seq, Cf. 1 Cor. xi. 6, 
7; James, iii. 9. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and 
even Augustine, explained the words of Mosos 
in this wav 



WORKS OF GOD. 



191 



2. The later Jews appear to have used this 
phrase in different senses, as we learn from the 
Book of Wisdom and Siraeh. They included in 
its meaning, 

(a) The immortality of the body, aqfeapaia. 
"0?i 6 ©so? ix'titis ?6v av$pu>TCov srt' d^aptfia, xal 
slxova tr { i L8l<xs t^tof^i'oj srCoirjasv avtov. Q^ovcp 
8s 8iaj5o'kov ^dvaifos slsrJT^tsv sl$ tbv xotijxov rtftpd- 
t,ov6i 8s avrbv ol trrf sxslvov [jLspi8o$ bvts$, Book 
of Wisdom, ii. 23, 24. In this respect, there- 
fore, according to this writer, we have lost the 
image of God. Vide ver. 24, where he consi- 
ders death as the consequence of sin, and attri- 
butes it to the devil. This immortality was re- 
garded by the whole ancient world as something 
divine and godlike, and is made by Homer the 
principal mark and characteristic of his deities. 
Gods and c&ai/ar'ot are always synonymous in 
his writings. 

(6) Dominion over the earth, Book of Wis- 
dom, ix. 2, 3 ; Siraeh, xvii. 3, 4. The domi- 
nion of man over the inferior creation is regard- 
ed, even by Philo, as a remnant of his original 
perfection and power, De Opif. Mundi, p. 100, 
ed. Pf. Siraeh, in the passage cited, seems to 
include in this image, together with dominion 
over the earth, reason, speech, and the other 
perfections mentioned in ver. 5, seq. In this re- 
spect we still retain the image of God. 

(c) The moral state, Book of Wisdom, ix. 3, 
where mention is made of the ocsioifqs xal 8ixcuo- 
ovvrj xal sv^vtqs ^vxr t ? in which the first men 
lived upon the earth and ruled over it. These 
moral excellences we do not any longer possess ; 
certainly not in the same degree as formerly. 

3. The same significations of the phrase, 
image of God, which were noticed No. 2, were 
common among the Jews at the time of Christ, 
and were accordingly adopted by the apostles. 
They use this phrase, 

(a) In reference to the general exaltation, 
dignity, and dominion of man: — e. g., 1 Cor. 
xi. 7; James, iii. 9. (b) In reference to the 
moral perfections of man, exactly as it is used 
by the author of the Book of Wisdom — e. g., 
Col. iii. 10, coll. Ephes. iv. 23, 24. Both of 
these epistles were written at the same time; 
they are entirely similar in phraseology, and 
perfectly parallel in these passages. Christians, 
especially converts from heathenism, are here 
exhorted to renounce altogether their former sin- 
ful propensities, and the wicked life which they 
had previously led, (rto&aib$ ow&ponios ;) and to 
put on the new man — i. e., to be wholly reno- 
vated, to embrace new principles, and to lead a 
new life correspondent to their principles. Now 
this new man is said to be avaxacvovfis voj, renew- 
ed — l. e., new created, or remodelled by God, 
Ephes. iv. 23 ; and hence the phrase, the re- 
newal or restoration of the divine image. Et? 
Erfiyvoxnv should be construed with x-ticavtos 



avtov, to the knowledge of God — i. e., this dis- 
position is produced in you to enable you to at- 
tain to the knowledge of God and of his will — 
a living and saving knowledge. Kt?1£s iv. to cre- 
ate anew, transform — i. e., entirely to change 
and improve ; continuing the figure derived from 
the new man. Kow 1 ' slxova ®sov — i. e., accord- 
ing to Ephes. iv. 24, xa-ta ®sbv, after the pattern 
or likeness of God — i. e., that you should be- 
come again like unto God. Paul here makes 
this likeness of God to consist in a moral re- 
semblance — that holiness and uprightness, to 
the attainment of which Christ teaches .us the 
means, and gives us the power. This is clear 
from what precedes, and also from Ephes. iv. 
24, where Paul says that this reformed charac- 
ter, bearing the divine likeness, consists iv 
dLxaioavvv] (piety), xal osiotrjifc trfi a^ypslac, — 
(i. e., aXrj$ivy,) honest, sincere integrity. The 
same words are employed in the passage cited 
from the Book of Wisdom. John, in his epis- 
tles, frequently urges the duty of striving to be- 
come like to God, (filii Dei,) although he does 
not use the phrase, image of God. Plato says, 
that likeness (o^ouociij) to God is, " 8txaiov xal 
O610V /.Lsta typovipscos yiv£c$cu." Cicero makes 
our likeness to God both a physical and moral 
resemblance. God, he says, animated the 
human body, " ut essent qui terram tuerentur, 
quique ccelestium ordinem contemplantes imita- 
rentur cum vita? modo et constantia." 

III. Concluding Remarks. 

We draw the following general conclusion 
from these historical and exegetical observations 
— viz., the phrase, the image of God, is very 
comprehensive, and used in the Bible in more 
than one sense ; and many unnecessary disputes 
would have been avoided, if it had not been 
adopted in systematic theology as the title of a 
particular article. One may say, without at all 
denying a primitive state of innocence, that the 
image of God in which man was created did not 
consist in this state, and that it still continues 
after the fall. If we believe the scriptures, we 
shall believe in the primitive innocence of man ; 
but there is no necessity for us to call it the 
image of God. It would be far better to aban-" 
don the phrase, image of God, in speaking sci- 
entifically on the original perfections of man, 
and to adopt in its place the more comprehensive 
title, the state of innocence. The latter phrase is 
derived from 2 Cor. xi. 3, where Paul says, he 
fears that, as Eve was beguiled by the serpent, 
Christians may be beguiled (by false teachers) 
from the dTtXor'^T'oj t^s sis Xprnrdv — i. e., si??i- 
plicitas, sincerity, purity ,• here, pure love to 
Christ, true and sincere dependence upon him 
like what innocent children feel towards their 
parents and benefactors. 

Again ; we compare men with God in respect 



192 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to all the excellences which we observe in them, 
and which we conceive that he also possesses, 
only in a higher and more perfect degree. We 
may say of men, therefore, that, in respect to 
all these excellences, they bear the image of God, 
or are like him. Now we still possess, as we 
are taught in the scriptures, many of these no- 
bler powers with which our nature was endued, 
though in a far less degree than God ; such are 
reason, dominion over the earth, &c. Other of 
these excellences, according to the constant 
doctrine of the Bible, we have lost by the fall, 
or possess at present in a far less degree than 
our first parents before the fall. Among the 
latter are (a) that degree of bodily strength and 
health which laid the foundation for the immor- 
tality of the body; and (&) more especially 
moral perfections. Thus we see that the Bible 
will support us in saying, both that we still 
possess the image of God, and that we possess 
it no longer, according as we use this phrase in 
a wider or narrower sense. So far as the pos- 
terity of Adam still possesses reason and power 
over irrational creatures, they still possess the 
image of God, Deo sunt similes. So far as they 
have ceased to be righteous and holy as man 
was in his state of innocence, and so far as their 
bodies are now become mortal, they have lost 
the image of God. But so far as they regain 
this original moral rectitude, and a happy im- 
mortality, they again become like God, and his 
image is renewed in their souls. This whole 
subject is discussed by Morus, p. 105, s. 23, in 
a manner worthy of imitation, especially in the 
practical turn which he has given it. 

Note. — Theologians have invented various 
divisions and technical phrases, in order to de- 
termine more accurately the nature and kind of 
those excellences and perfections which were 
bestowed by God upon man at the creation. 
But these divisions have given rise to many er- 
roneous views of this subject. The following 
distinctions deserve to be particularly noticed : — 

1. These original endowments of man are 
not to be understood as excellences which he 
possessed in actual exercise (habitus, Scholast. 
habitus infusi ,•) but only as capacities and fa- 
culties for those excellences which, by practice 
and exercise, he may come to possess. The 
human soul resembles in this respect an unwrit- 
ten leaf, (the tabula rasa of Aristotle,) upon 
which everything can be written for which it 
has a natural fitness and susceptibility. Vide 
Introduction, s. 4. 

2. They are naturales ; united with human 
nature, and wrought into it by God ; and op- 
posed (a) to perfectiones essentiales, because man 
can be conceived to exist without them, and 
would remain man though destitute of them ; 
and (p} to perfectiones superadditi per gratiam. 



This last point was affirmed in opposition to 
many theologians of the Romish church, who 
placed these excellences in a high degree of wis- 
dom, justice, and holiness, imparted by God to 
men on creation in a supernatural manner, and 
in addition to the original endowments of his 
nature. They regarded the similitudo cum Deo 
as opposed to the status pur or um naturalium, in 
which man was without the knowledge or love 
of God ; and therefore as a donum super natur ale, 
which could be lost without altering the essen- 
tial nature of man. 

3. Perfectiones propagibiles. It was the inten- 
tion of God that these perfections should be 
transmitted to the posterity of our first parents, 
so long as the conditions prescribed by God 
should be fulfilled. 

SECTION LIV. 

OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS MENTAL 
AND MORAL PERFECTIONS. 

The excellences which man possessed in his 
original condition are generally divided into two 
classes ; (a) Internal, such as belong to the es- 
sential constitution of human nature, as esta- 
blished by God himself, including all his ori- 
ginal perfections both of soul and body ; s. 54, 
55. (6) External, such advantages as man 
possessed from the relation to the rest of the 
creation in which he was placed by God; his 
dominion over the other creatures of the earth, 
his title to use them for his own advantage, 
&c. — imago Dei sensu laiiori ; s. 56. We shall 
first treat of the internal excellences of man ; 
in this section, of the original perfections of his 
soul,- in the following, of those of his body. The 
excellences which originally belonged to the 
soul of man will now be considered in reference 
to its two principal powers — understanding and 
will. 

I. Original Excellences of the Human Under- 
standing. 

Reason and the intellectual powers are the 
noblest gifts which we have received from God, 
without which we could not be moral beings. 
We cannot suppose, then, that these powers 
should have remained idle and unemployed dur- 
ing the happy state of innocence in which our 
first parents lived. Paul, therefore, with entire 
truth, makes titlyvuusis one of the things in which 
our likeness to God consisted; Col. iii. 10, cf. 
s. 53; since holiness and blamelessness, the 
other things mentioned as constituting it, could 
not exist, without some knowledge of good and 
evil. This knowledge, however, was not itself 
directly imparted to man at his creation, but 
only the power of obtaining knowledge. Vide 
s. 53, ad finem. 



WORKS OF GOD. 



19^ 



In what the knowledge of our first parents 
consisted neither Moses nor any other sacred 
writer has particularly informed us. Their 
state with respect to knowledge is doubtless 
justly described as a state of infancy ; in the 
sense, however, in which we speak of the in- 
fancy of nations; for Moses does not represent 
Adam as in all respects resembling a new-born 
child. As to actual knoivledge, he was, indeed, 
at the moment when God created him, exactly 
in the condition of a new-born child, and quite 
as destitute of innate ideas. But in another re- 
spect he was very unlike a new-born child ; in 
this, namely, that he was able to exercise his 
reason immediately, which a child is not. God 
created man, according to the Mosaic account, 
not only endued with reason, but able to exercise 
it on his first entrance into the world. .And if 
he had immediately the full use of his intellec- 
tual powers, he must very soon have acquired 
from the objects by which he was surrounded a 
great variety of ideas, and a large stock of know- 
ledge; and he would advance in knowledge the 
more rapidly and easily, as his mind was net as 
yet swayed by those inordinate bodily appe- 
tites, nor darkened by those prejudices, nor 
confirmed in those bad habits, by which all 
others who have attained to maturity are so 
effectually hindered in the acquisition of know- 
ledge. 

The means by which God called the intel- 
lectual powers of man into exercise, and brought 
them to a full development, were, according to 
Moses, of two kinds. 

(a) Indirect, — the external objects by which 
man was surrounded. Primate creatures, being 
more nearly related to him than the inanimate 
creation, were the first objects which attracted 
his attention and excited his curiosity. That 
this was so we may conclude, both from what 
we observe every day among children, and from 
the express declaration of Moses. The living 
creatures with which man was conversant first 
employed his thoughts ; and in giving them 
names, he first exercised the faculty of speech. 
Cf. s. 52, II. It was not until afterwards, and 
only in an inferior degree, that the inanimate 
creation also administered to his instruction by 
the various objects which it presented to his at- 
tention. 

(b) Direct, — the revelations made immediately 
to man. The Mosaic history throughout repre- 
sents God as familiarly and directly conversant 
with our first parents; and as speaking with 
them ; Gen. ii. 16, 17 ; i. 29, 30. And the his- 
tory of the fall (chap, iii.) presupposes in our 
first parents an acquaintance with some direct 
divine instruction, and with positive divine pre- 
cepts; and this corresponds entirely with the 
netions which even heathen nations have always 

25 



had of the original condition of man. In the 
early and infant age of the world, the Deity, 
they supposed, walked familiarly among men, 
and revealed himself to them directly, by words, 
dreams, visions, and in other ways. 

The knowledge of our first parents, so far as 
it was derived from natural sources, must have 
been confined to the objects by which they were 
immediately surrounded ; and even with regard 
to these, they knew only as much as was neces- 
sary for them in the circumstances in which they 
were placed. In comparison with the know- 
ledge which we possess at present, it must have 
been very small, as their wants were compara- 
tively very few. The Mosaic history does not 
afford the remotest support to the fabulous sto- 
ries which we find in the rabbins, ecclesiastical 
fathers, and other writers, who have followed the 
later Jewish teachers, respecting the extensive 
physiological, scientific, and literary knowledge 
of Adam. These Jewish fables are connected 
with the notion that the language which Adam 
spoke was Hebrew, which is supposed by the 
Jews to be a holy language, inspired by God — a 
pretension which has been ably refuted by 
Schultens. The Jews think they can discover 
proof of the thorough knowledge of nature which 
Adam possessed, in the Hebrew names which 
they suppose him to have given to the various 
animals, and from the etymologies of these 
names. 

We should not expect to find thorough know- 
ledge or extensive learning in our first parents, 
for the following reasons : — viz., (a) With their 
few wants they could derive no advantage from 
such knowledge, and could make no use of it. 
(b) As to religion, the knowledge which they 
needed both of its theoretical and practical truths 
could be comprised in a few simple and intelli- 
gible points. Of any higher or more extended 
knowledge of this subject they were at first 
wholly incapable, (c) It will not be denied that 
the language of our first parents must have been 
simple and scanty. Vide s. 55. But it is well 
known from experience, that without words, and 
indeed without a great copiousness and richness 
of language, neither distinct and definite ideas, 
nor, in general, accurate knowledge, can exist. 
(d) When men first begin to collect in society, 
even supposing them endued with the most no- 
ble faculties and intellectual powers, they cannot 
be instructed by philosophy, like learned and 
cultivated people. They must first be instructed 
by what is sensible; and have everything ren- 
dered as obvious to the senses as possible ; ex- 
actly as it is represented, Gen. ii. 19, 20. If the 
representation there made were different, and 
such as many modern scholars would have us 
believe, it would be highly improbable, and the 
] whole narrative would become suspicious. This 
R 



194 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



very simplicity gives it the stamp of internal 
truth, (e) Oar first parents are represented in 
chap. iii. as in fact credulous and easily be- 
guiled. And how can this be reconciled with 
the supposition that they possessed that deep 
and extensive knowledge and those great per- 
fections sometimes ascribed to them? The 
knowledge of Adam, then, cannot be compared 
with that of any advanced and mature race of 
men. The same standard of judging cannot be 
employed in the two cases. It may be readily 
conceded, however, that the powers and faculties 
of our first parents, as long as the crapf and 
rtpsv/xa, sense and reason, remained in proper ba- 
lance, were greater than those of their posterity, 
in whom the case is otherwise. Vide Dr. Junge, 
" Volekommenheiten der ersten Menschen," 
Stuck 1, of his philosophical and theological 
Essays ; Niirnberg, 1779, 8vo. 

II. Original Excellences of the Human Will. 

They consist chiefly in the order and regu- 
larity of our bodily desires. Our first parents 
in their state of innocence were blameless and 
sinless. They had sincere love for God and re- 
gard for his commandments, and did everything 
which was agreeable to him with the greatest 
readiness, out of pure love, as virtuous children 
do the will of an earthly parent. In short, if 
their piety was childlike in respect to the know- 
ledge upon which it was founded, it was also so 
in respect to its purity and simplicity. And this 
disposition is that which will be revived in those 
in whom the image of God is renewed. Hence 
Christ recommends us so earnestly to become 
like children. Our first parents obeyed from 
grateful love ; and it is the object of Christianity, 
in designing to renew the image of God, to bring 
us to render obedience to God and Christ from 
motives of grateful love. But this rectitude of 
our first parents consisted only in the subjection 
of their bodily appetites to the law of reason. 
Both scripture and experience teach us that our 
depravity and moral degeneracy arise principally 
from the dominion of sense (crapi) over reason 
(7tv£v[xa.) Such was not the case with man in 
his state of innocence ; he then suffered his ap- 
petites to be controlled by rational considera- 
tions; he fixed his choice only upon what was 
good, and his desires being virtuous, his actions 
were the same. Hence this original rectitude 
of man is called sinlessness (a.vatj.a^tr^ia.') The 
representation now given of the original recti- 
tude of man depends principally upon the pas- 
sages, Col. iii. and Ephes. iv. Vide s. 53. In 
these passages, righteousness (uprightness) and 
holiness (moral perfection) are ascribed by Paul 
to the will of man as first created, and as re- 
newed. This rectitude of the will is called by 
theologians imaginem Dei stride sic diciam, also 



justitiam originalem, the last of which is used 
in the Apol. Augsb. Confession. Vide Morus, 
p. 105, Not. ad. s. 23. Of the same import is 
the phrase sifrvtqs ^vzr,$, which occurs, Book of 
Wisdom, ix. 3 (s. 53) ; and also o^o-r^j and 
arfkotr^, 2 Cor. xi. 3. Ev$v$ corresponds with 
the Hebrew yd-, honest, upright, virtuous; and 
is used with particular reference to the text, 
Eccles. vii. 29, "God made man upright; but 
he sought out many inventions (wrong ways)." 
The meaning is : man had a natural capacity for 
virtue, but he abandoned nature, and declined to 
evil, notwithstanding his noble capacities. 

The opinions which many form of the per- 
fections of the will of our first parents, and of the 
virtues of their character, are frequently very 
extravagant. This is a fault which should be 
guarded against. Man was created with the 
amplest capacity for moral excellency; but it 
cannot be said that he had attained to the actual 
possession of this excellence in a very high 
degree. High and confirmed virtue can only be 
attained by a long course of moral action; and 
at that early period opportunities for this action 
must have been very rare. God, however, did 
not require more from man than he had given 
to him. But the understanding of man in his 
primitive state, though indeed sufficient for the 
situation in which he was placed, was still very 
small, and his actual knowledge very limited ; 
but the more feeble and imperfect these are, the 
more imperfect, necessarily, must be that virtue 
which depends upon them. There is a great 
difference between the innocence of childhood, 
and the virtue which is grounded upon the more 
perfect and mature knowledge and experience 
of a riper and more advanced age. If our first 
parents had possessed so preponderating a bias 
to good as many have supposed, it is hard to 
see how they could have been so easily seduced. 
We behold them yielding to temptations which 
would have in vain assailed many of those 
among their descendants, in whom, according 
to the language of scripture, the image of God 
is renewed. 

They, however, were not destitute of a know- 
ledge of their duty sufficient for their situation; 
for so much God had provided, Genesis, iii. 2, 
3. Accordingly, their neglect of duty and their 
transgression of the divine command could be 
imputed to them. We should avoid, therefore, 
the other mi stake of representing them as en- 
tirely ignorant. Vide Morus, s. 8, 22. If they 
had been faithful in the use of the knowledge 
which they possessed, they would have attained 
to a greater measure of it, and to a more fixed 
habit of goodness, as is the case among those 
in whom the image of God is renewed. Cf. 
Matt. xiii. 12, and the texts cited from the epis- 
tles to the Ephesians and Colossians. 



WORKS OF GOD. 



195 



SECTION LV. 

OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN; HIS BODILY 
EXCELLENCES, AND SPEECH. 

I. Original Excellences of the Human Body. 

1, The superiority of our first parents over 
their posterity in this respect cannot be accu- 
rately and particularly determined from the 
Mosaic account. So much, however, is clear 
from this account, that the body of man was then 
perfectly healthy, strong 1 , and vigorous, and that 
it would have enjoyed a never-failing" youth if 
man had continued in that happy condition in 
which he was first placed. And this account 
agrees perfectly with the representations which 
we find among' other nations of the animal cheer- 
ful ness, the bodily health and strength of man 
in the golden age, and even down into the hero- 
ical age. Homer frequently speaks of the strong 
bodily powers of the men of an earlier period, 
in comparison with the feebleness of those who 
lived in his own age. The blooming - health and 
bodily vigour of our first parents contributed to 
the health and strength of the soul; its powers 
were not disordered or weakened by sickness; 
the passions and appetites, which so often de- 
stroy both body and soul, were as yet moderate 
and regular. On this subject, as well as with 
regard to the original mental and moral excel- 
lences of man, the fancy of the later Jews was- 
very active; and they invented innumerable 
fables, with which their writings are filled, 
respecting the beauty, the gigantic size and 
strength, of the first man. 

The immortality of the body is expressly men- 
tioned in the Mosaic account, as one of the pe- 
culiar distinguishing advantages which our first 
parents enjoyed, Gen. ii. 17, but which we have 
lost by the fall, Gen. iii. 3, 19. The same is 
also everywhere taught by the later Jewish 
writers, who always regarded the immortality 
ef the body as a part of the image of God. Vide 
Book of Wisdom, ii. 23, seq., (s. 53, II. 2.) 
So also the first Christian teachers — e. g., Ro- 
mans, v. 12 ; vi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 ; where 
the same views are given as in the texts cited 
from the Book of Wisdom. This doctrine of 
the immortality of the body does not imply that 
man in his nature was so unalterable that he 
absolutely could not die. An impossibilitas mo- 
riendi, or immortalitas absohita, is not pretended ; 
but only the absentia necessitatis naturalis mori- 
endi, or immortalitas hypothetica, the condition 
proposed being obedience to the command of 
God, and the enjoyment of the tree of life being 
permitted to them only so long as they should 
fulfil this condition. Morus, p. 98, s. 9, note. 
Nor is this immortality represented even by 
Moses as a necessary consequence resulting 
from the incorruptible nature of the human body, 



but as a favour promised to man by God, and 
depending upon the constants-repeated use of 
the tree of life, Gen. ii. 9, coll. iii. 22, 24. Of. 
s. 52, II. Something similar to this is found in 
the Grecian mythology, which represents the 
gods as partaking of nectar and ambrosia, in order 
to preserve and invigorate their bodies; while 
mortal men were not allowed to participate of 
this heavenly food, even when they ate with the 
gods. Horn. Od. v. 197, 199. 

The question is frequently asked, whether man 
would have always remained upon the earth if he 
had not fallen? The Mosaic history furnishes 
no reply to this question ; but the answer com- 
monly given by theologians is, that man would 
not always have remained here below, but that, 
by some unknown transformation, without death, 
or the separation of the soul from the body, he 
would have been raised to a higher happiness 
in heaven. To this opinion Morus assents. It 
is grounded principally upon the New-Testa- 
ment doctrine, that those men who should still 
be alive at the day of judgment would not die, 
but be changed — i. e., their grosser bodies would 
pass, without the painful sensation of death, into 
those more refined and perfect bodies which all 
will possess in the abodes of the blessed, 1 Cor. 
xv. 51, seq. This representation is supposed 
to furnish some evidence with regard to the ori- 
ginal destination of the human body; and this 
is rendered more probable by what Paul says, 
ver. 47, "du£pQrfo$ ix yrj xo'ixoc, (cere)-" But 
we cannot attain to certainly upon this sub- 
ject, because the holy scriptures leave it un- 
decided. 

2. It was not intended, however, by the Crea- 
tor, that our first, parents, while living in their 
state of innocence, should leave their bodily 
powers unemployed and unexercised. Morus, 
s. 4. The life which they were to lead was 
not one of indolent ease and animal enjoyment, 
although such is the notion almost universally 
entertained respecting the life in the golden age. 
Our first parents, on the contrary, were required 
to labour, and in that way still further to de- 
velop and perfect their bodily and intellectual 
powers. Vide s. 51. II. The very idea, how- 
ever, of this happy age, excludes the notion of 
pain and hardship, the frequent attendants of 
labour. Vide Genesis, ii. 5 ; iii. 17 — 19. Agri- 
culture is mentioned, in the passages before 
cited, as the first employment appointed for man. 
The taming, or rather domestication and em- 
ployment of animals is mentioned in Gen. i. 23. 
By describing agriculture as the first employ- 
ment of man, Moses obviates the false opinion 
that our first parents were originally in a savage 
state. A degree of cultivation which savages 
do not possess is implied in agricultural employ- 
ments ; and they lead faster than any other to 
progressive improvement. 



196 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



II. Original Language of Man. 

Speech is the great characteristic excellence 
of man, without which he would hardly be able 
to employ his rational powers, or to exist in so- 
cial connexion with his fellow-men. Of this 
distinguishing faculty of man Moses makes ex- 
press mention, Gen. ii. 19 ; cf. s. 52, II. There 
have always been very various opinions respect- 
ing the origin of human language. For the 
opinions of the ancient Greeks, vide Puffendorf, 
Jus naturae et gentium, 1. iv. c. l,s. 3, and Miil- 
ler, Positiones, historico-philosoph. de origine 
sermonis ; Argentorati, 1777. This subject has 
been often discussed in modern times, and has 
caused much controversy both among philoso- 
phers and theologians ; and as it is usually made 
a topic of discussion in modern systematic the- 
ology, and can be more naturally introduced into 
this department than any other, we shall treat 
of it briefly in this place. Writers on this sub- 
ject are divided into two principal classes — viz., 

1. Some have maintained that an articulate 
language, consisting of arbitrary sounds, was 
imparted to man at his creation, and that he was 
able immediately to speak it ; and moreover, that 
this original language was very copious and in 
the highest degree perfect. Man, they assert, 
not only did not, as a matter of fact, invent the 
language which he spake, but never could have 
done it; and so they suppose that speech was 
originally as special and miraculous an endow- 
ment as the gift of tongues to the apostles. The 
principal advocate of this opinion in modern 
times is Joh. Pet. Siissmilch, who has attempt- 
ed, with no common sagacity, to prove that the 
origin of language is not to be traced to man, 
but directly to God. Vide his Essay on this 
subject, published at Berlin, 1766, 8vo. But, 

(a) The nature of language itself, and the 
most ancient history of it, furnish conclusive 
evidence that man not only can invent, but has 
actually invented, articulated language, consist- 
ing of arbitrary sounds. All languages in their 
incipient state are indescribably simple, consist- 
ing of very few and short words and phrases, 
which are so insufficient for the communication 
of thought, that looks and gestures are called in 
to their aid. Such we observe to be the case 
still with children, who have more thoughts 
and feelings than words in which to express 
them. The same is true of savages, and gene- 
rally of all who have but few words. Now, if 
God had communicated language in some such 
miraculous manner as is supposed to our first 
parents, it is hard to see why he should have 
suffered this language to be afterwards lost, and 
how it should have come to pass that all the 
nations springing from Adam should have begun 
back with the very elements of speech, and pro- 
ceeding from these, have formed so many and 



such different languages. According to this 
supposition, then, a great miracle would have 
been wrought in behalf of our first parents, from 
which none of their posterity had reaped the 
least advantage. This is not according to th°. 
manner of God in his other works. 

(b) The supposition that the original lan- 
guage of man was copious and finished, over- 
looks the fact that language cannot be such 
where objects and ideas are still scanty and im- 
perfect. Ideas arise from the perception of ob- 
jects ; and the number, clearness, and distinct- 
ness of our ideas is in proportion to the number 
of objects which we behold, either simply or in 
connexion with others. But language contains 
the signs and symbols by which we express 
our ideas of things, and communicate them to 
others. How, then, could there be a perfect 
language in that simplicity of human life in 
which there were but few objects to be seen or 
compared] The advocates of this supposition 
are driven to the absurdity of saying that man 
could have spoken of things which he had never 
seen or thought of. It was remarked by Samuel 
Werenfels, very truly, that if one should look 
through the most comprehensive and complete 
dictionary, he would find but few words which 
could have belonged to the language of Adam. 

(c) Again ; of what use could a rich and cul- 
tivated language have been to our first parents ? 
And if of none, how can the supposition that 
such a language was miraculously given them 
be reconciled with divine wisdom, which does 
not work miracles except for some important 
object 1 ? Now it is perfectly obvious that to 
them, in their peaceful and simple life, when 
they had but few wants, and those easily satis- 
fied, such a language would have been of no 
utility. They had as yet no ideas of innume- 
rable things which became afterwards known 
as improvement advanced ; and for such things, 
of course, they had no words in their language. 
The language of our first parents, in its incipient 
state, could not naturally have been more copi- 
ous or perfect than the language of nations ge- 
nerally while they are still in their infancy and 
possess but few ideas, and of course have, and 
need to have, but few words to express them. 

(d) We justly conclude, from what we see of 
the wisdom of God in all his other works, that 
he did not endow man, on his creation, with any 
advantage which he himself could attain in the 
diligent use of the powers and faculties of his 
nature. So we conclude that man has no innate 
ideas, because he can easily obtain the ideas he 
possesses by the use of his intellectual powers. 
And with still more reason may we conclude, 
on the same ground, that man has no imagines 
innatas, sive signa innata idearum de rebus. 
The Bible makes no mention of any such ; on 
the contrary, it teaches that one way in which 



WORKS OF GOD. 



197 



our first parents learned language was from 
their intercourse with irrational creatures, in 
giving names to which they first exercised the 
faculty of speech. 

2. The second class affirm that God did not 
bestow language itself upon man at his creation, 
but gave him powers and faculties which would 
enable him to form a language for himself, and 
gradually to refine and enrich it as his circum- 
stances might require. Those who hold this 
opinion may have as sincere admiration for the 
wisdom of God and gratitude for his goodness 
as the advocates of the other theory. Among 
the ancients, Epicurus, (vide Lucretius,) and 
among the fathers, Tertullian and Gregory of 
Nyssa, assented to this opinion ; and it was 
considered even by Quenstadt as entirely unob- 
jectionable. 

These writers, however, differ among them- 
selves respecting the manner in which man pro- 
ceeded in the development and improvement of 
his faculties of speech. The strangest conjecture 
on this point is that of Maupertius, that language 
was formed by a session of learned societies, 
assembled for the purpose ! The theory which 
derives the most support from history is, that 
the roots, the primitive radical words of articu- 
late and conventional language, were originally 
made in imitation of the sounds which we hear 
from the different objects in the natural world, 
and that these original sounds, in imitation of 
which language is first formed, become less and 
less discernible in these languages in proportion 
as they are improved and enlarged, and the ra- 
dical words are subjected to various alterations 
and inflexions. Vide Herder, Ueber den Ur- 
sprung der Sprache, (a prize Essay;) Berlin, 
1772 ; 2nd ed. 1778 ; 3rd, 1789. Cf. the works 
of Tetens and Tiedemann on this subject; also 
Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. s. 134, f. 

These views respecting the origin of language 
are entirely consistent with the very natural re- 
presentation which Moses gives, Gen. ii. 19, 
20, of the naming of the animals. Vide s. 52, 
II. These were the first objects to which man 
directed his attention, and to these he gave 
names, sometimes derived from his calls to them, 
and sometimes from voices and sounds which 
they themselves made. In this way, then, man 
was first led to exercise his powers of speech ; 
and it was perfectly natural for him to begin to 
speak by giving names to animals, as they are 
more interesting to him, and more nearly related 
to him, than the inanimate creation. 

Now, when our first parents were to be in- 
structed in moral objects, which could not be 
recognised by their senses, it must necessarily 
be done by images drawn from nature, and es- 
pecially from animals, and so their names and 
the names of their actions were figuratively ap- 
plied, in the poverty of the then existing lan- 



guage, to designate moral objects. In conform- 
ity with these views, we must interpret what 
God says, Genesis, iii., iv., which would have 
been unintelligible to our first parents if it had 
been expressed in such language and phraseo- 
logy as is now common among us; but which, 
being expressed in a figurative manner, was 
level to their comprehension. This is the way 
in which missionaries are now compelled to pro- 
ceed, when they have to do with men who have 
no ideas on religious and spiritual subjects, and 
of course no words answering to them in their 
language. Instruction intended for children, 
also, must be conveyed in the same figurative 
language and style; and they are always found 
to be most interested in allegories and fables, 
like those of iEsop. Those who object to this 
mode of instruction only prove, then, their own 
ignorance. Instruction imparted to uncultivated 
men must of necessity be given in a figurative 
manner, because they not only speak, but even 
think, in figures. From abstract expressions 
they derive but faint conceptions. The case is 
entirely different among cultivated men. 

SECTION LVI. 

OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS EXTERNAL 
ADVANTAGES ; AND THE NOTION OF A GOLDEN 
AGE. 

I. Original External Advantages of Man. 

This is the second class of the distinguishing 
advantages of our first parents, as divided in the 
beginning of s. 54. They have their ground in 
the external relation of man to the other crea- 
tures of the earth ; but they presuppose in him 
the possession of those internal excellences de- 
scribed s. 54, 55. These advantages are com- 
prehended under the general description, the 
dominion of man over the earth, or over the crea- 
tures of the earth, Morus, p. 104, s. 21 ; and 
this is taken from Gen. i. 26, seq. coll. Gen. 
ix. 2. This dominion implies nothing more 
than that man possesses (a) the right and title 
to make all the creatures of the earth contribute 
to his own advantage, to the supply of his 
wants, and to the convenience of his life ; and 
(b) that he possesses both the power and skill 
to compel them to that subservience to which 
their nature is adapted. Cf. s. 52, II. It is 
said by Plato, in a passage in Timseus respect- 
ing the creation of men, as translated by Cicero, 
" Tales creantur, ut Deorurn immortalium quasi 
gentiles esse debeant, divini gene) is cippellcntiir, 
(cf. Acts, xvii. 28, from Aratus, tov yap xai 
yivoq etifjisv,) teneantque omnium aniiuantiuin 
printipatum" God has placed man, as lord, 
at the head of the animate creation ; made him 
his image upon the earth- — a subordinate god — 
a representative of the Deity. And the irrs 
r2 



its 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



tional creatures, whose knowledge cannot ex- 
tend beyond what they can recognise by their 
senses, can conceive of nothing superior to man. 
Of God and of spiritual things they know no- 
thing, and so can have no duties to perform to 
him. Their business is, to submit to man, as 
their lord and ruler ; and God has given to man 
the means to compel them to this obedience, for 
which they were made. With many animals, 
even since the fall, this subjection to man seems 
to be natural and easy ; they are inclined to his 
service of their own accord, or are readily pre- 
vailed upon by favours or chastisements to en- 
gage in it. 

This dominion which was conferred upon 
man over the animate and the inanimate crea- 
tion he still retains, at least in a good measure. 
It is represented as still the prerogative of man 
in Psalm viii. 6 — 9, the whole of which passage 
is a paraphrase of Genesis, i. 26, seq. (On the 
question, whether this dominion is only a part, 
or the whole of what is intended, when it is 
said that man was made in the image of God, 
cf. s. 53, I. II.) Theologians, however, fre- 
quently assert, that since the fall man does not 
possess this dominion over the inferior creation 
in its fall extent ,• and it does not follow from 
the words of Moses, considered by themselves, 
that he ever did. Moses, however, and other 
sacred writers, clearly teach, that such wild, in- 
tractable, and cruel beasts, as are now found 
upon the earth, were unknown to man in his 
original condition, where they were all tame 
and subject to his will. This is clear, too, from 
the figurative description which the prophets 
give of the return of that happy age — e. g., Isa. 
xi. 6 ; lxv. 25. The same opinions respecting 
that happy age of innocence in the youth of 
the world are found among the Greeks, Romans, 
(cf. Virg. Eel. iv.,) and almost all nations. 

From the relation which man holds to irra- 
tional creatures, as their master and ruler, he 
owes them several important duties; the consi- 
deration of which belongs, however, rather to 
the department of morals than of theology. 

II. The Notion of a Golden Age. 

1. The notion of a golden age of the world is 
almost universal ; and, although somewhat mo- 
dified by the peculiar opinions and customs of 
each people, it is yet found diffused through all 
ages and nations, as far as history extends, and 
is everywhere substantially the same. All na- 
tions believe that the original state of the earth 
and of the human race was far more happy and 
cheerful, and in every respect better, than the 
present ; and that either at once or more gradu- 
ally the world degenerated. The notions which 
the Grecians, and the nations which adopted 
their mythology, the Romans and others, enter- 
tained respecting the different ages, — the golden, 



silver, &c, — are generally known. Cf. Hesiod, 
"Epy. xai rjfi. verses 109—201. Ovid, Met. I. 
89 — 162. Virgil, Eel. iv., and the selections 
from Plato and Diodorus in Euseb. Piaep. Evan, 
i. 7 ; xii. 13. [Cf. Lucretius, De rerum nat. ii. 
332, seq. Tibullus, i. 3, 35, seq. Seneca, 
Hipp. v. 524.] The same opinions substan- 
tially are found among rude and savage na- 
tions — the inhabitants of Kamschatka, Tartary, 
the Indians in North and South America, the 
South-Sea Islands, &c. 

2. What is the source of these ideas, which 
are so universally diffused 1 

(a) It was formerly supposed very generally 
that all these mythological fables were only tra- 
ditionary relics and fragments of a direct divine 
revelation. The Mosaic history was regarded 
as the only source from which these various 
and wide-spread ideas were derived ; and to 
shew how they were handed down from one 
age to another, and transmitted from the He- 
brews to the Greeks, Romans, and others, has 
been very often attempted. But the arguments 
employed in support of this opinion have been 
generally far-fetched, and unsupported by his- 
tory ; as, indeed, all arguments must be which 
are adduced in support of the opinion, that the 
scriptures are the only source from which the 
ideas of the Greeks, Romans, and others, re- 
specting the original state of man, are derived, 
and that these ideas have been only corrupted 
in being transmitted by the intermixture of fa- 
ble. This opinion was advocated by Huetius, 
in his " Demonstratio Evangelica, where he en- 
deavoured to shew that the scripture history 
was at the foundation of the whole Grecian 
mythology. But his theory is inconsistent 
with facts, as is very generally acknowledged 
at the present day. Much, indeed, of the scrip- 
tural account respecting the original condition 
of man may have been preserved and diffused 
among the nations of the earth. But it cannot 
be historically proved that our sacred history is 
the only ground of these ideas of a golden pe- 
riod, in which all nations agree. These uni- 
versal ideas on this subject may have arisen 
partly from other sources. Men are everywhere 
alike in all the essential parts of human nature. 
And hence there prevails among them a certain 
universal analogy in respect to language, man- 
ners, modes of thought and opinion; and from 
this analogy their agreement on many points 
may be explained, without supposing them to 
have learned or borrowed from one another. 
Vide Introduction, s. 9, No. 6. 

(b) One cause of this notion of a golden age 
so widely diffused among heathen nations is the 
disposition, which may be seen in all men, io 
think the past better and more happy than the 
present. This disposition has its origin in a 
certain urgent feeling of our natures, of which 



WORKS OF GOD, 



199 



we shall in a moment say more. We shall 
here speak only of the disposition itself, as it is 
seen among men. And in accordance with it, 
the higher one ascends into antiquity the more 
happv and charming does the world become to 
his view ; the nearer he approaches the times in 
which he lives, the more imperfect and dismal 
docs everything appear. It was the same with 
men in respect to their views of the past a thou- 
sand years ago. And had the world actually 
degenerated, physically and morally, a thousand 
years ago as much as the old men, laudator er, 
temporis acti, doubtless then thought and said, 
and had each successive generation of men since 
proved, according to the expression of Horace, 
progenies vitiosior, then the world by this time 
would have become a mere waste, and the whole 
human race would have long since perished ! 
This prevalent belief that the world from the 
first had been constantly deteriorating was 
now clothed in an historical form, and taught 
as actual truth ; and the fables thus invented 
respecting the early state of man, though they 
differ in some particulars, are yet everywhere 
essentially the same. 

The manner in which the ideas of a golden 
age may have originated, and have been gradu- 
ally developed into those mythological descrip- 
tions which are found in all nations, may be 
shewn by the following remarks, founded upon 
experience : — When we have arrived at mature 
years, and especially when we are in the decline 
of life, the period of our youth appears to us far 
better than the present. We were then more free 
from anxiety than ever after; our susceptibi- 
lity of pleasurable emotions had not then been 
blunted ; our heart was open to the enjoyments 
of life. And when we look around, and every- 
thing seems to us to have degenerated since we 
were young, it is not unnatural to conclude that 
the same has been true in every age; that at a 
very early period, in the infancy of the world, it 
was full of peace and happiness, and from that 
time to the present has been gradually growincr 
worse and worse. And we are strengthened in 
this conclusion by hearing our parents and 
grandparents speak in the same way respect- 
ing the times which they have lived through. 
Thus at length we come to the conviction that 
old times were better than the present, and that 
the farther back we go, the more delightful, 
happy, and perfect we shall find the state of the 
world. We then proceed to fill up this general 
outline which we have formed of a happv aje. 
And this we do by carefully removing from that 
golden period all the ills and imperfections of 
of our present state, the physical sufferings 
which we now endure, and also the evils arising 
from our social connexion, and from the progress 
of refinement. Then we suppose there was no 
need of clothing, there was no rough and uncom- 



I fortable weather, there were no harmful beasts, 

' and men were not as yet unjust and cruel. 

; Such is the picture of the primitive state of the 

! earth and of the human race, in which the an- 

{ cient fables of almost all nations agree. It de- 

'< serves, however, to be remarked, that Moses 

dissents from nearly all the heathen mytholo- 

1 gasts who have described the original state of 

[ man as one of indolence and perfect rest, and, 

on the contrary, makes it a state of activity and 

labour. 

These mythological descriptions have, no 
doubt, an historical basis, but whatever of truth 
there is in them has been enhanced and beauti- 
fied by the imagination in its attempt to bring 
up the golden age to its own ideal of perfection. 
For, in reality, that happy state of man of 
which so many dream, and which is depicted in 
heathen mythologies, is nothing more than the 
state of barbarism with its best side turned to 
the beholder, beautified by the imagination, and 
placed in that same magic and enchanting light 
with which we have seen the entire absence of 
cultivation covered over by the genius of Rous- 
seau. Vide his " Discours sur l'origine et les 
fondements de Tinegalite parmi les hommes." 
If the worst side of this state should be exhibit- 
ed, instead of pleasing it would shock and dis- 
gust all who have ever enjoyed the blessings 
of civilization and refinement." 

In this way we can account for the origin of 
these universal ideas respecting the original 
state of man, without supposing that they were 
altogether derived from the Mosaic record. 

(c) These remarks respecting the manner in 
which the opinions and ideas of men respecting 
a golden age first originated and are gradually 
developed are so obvious, and have so much in- 
ternal truth, that they occur of themselves to 
every observer of the world and of mankind. 
But for this very reason, that the universal ideas 
respecting the primitive state of man can be so 
easily accounted for, without supposing an his- 
torical foundation for them, the Mosaic history 
of this original state has, like the rest, been re- 
garded by many as fabulous. But those who 
have taken this view of the Mosaic history have 
overlooked other very important aspects of the 
subject, and have but a very partial acquaint- 
ance with it. Should they look at this subject 
on all sides they would see the necessitv of ad- 
mitting seme real truth as the basis of these 
wide-spread conceptions, and that the claims 
of the Mosaic account to our credence are 
greatly superior to those of heathen mythologies. 
This will be evident from the following consi- 
derations : — 

(a) The general disposition of all nations to 
regard the orio-inal condition of mankind as 
eminently happy, proves, beyond dispute, that 
they have felt a certain pressing necessity to 



200 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



believe that God, who is supremely wise and 
good, would have created the human race in a 
better condition than that in which it is now 
found. This feeling is universal among men. 
Most of the ancient philosophers acknowledged 
it, nor have modern philosophers been able en- 
tirely to suppress it. Vide the writings of 
Kant. But to mere philosophers there has 
always been a riddle here, which they have 
endeavoured, but have never been able, satis- 
factorily to solve. This riddle, so inexplicable 
to them, has been perfectly solved by the 
Bible, in the account which it gives of the fall 
of man from a state of innocence and happiness. 

(j6) That something must have taken place 
to corrupt the human race must seem at least 
probable, from the mere necessity of believing 
that it was once better than now. But if a 
book, accredited as a divine revelation, gives 
historical information respecting both the ori- 
ginal happy condition and the commencement 
of the degeneracy of our race, we are no longer 
left, in uncertainty with regard to the fact. 

(y) The Mosaic history of the state of inno- 
cence, although it agrees in some respects with 
the fables of the heathen respecting the golden 
age, in other respects differs widely from them. 
The extravagant, and plainly false and fabulous 
representations which are found in the writings 
of Hesiod, Ovid, and Plato, who describe the 
happy state as one of ease and indolence, do not 
occur in the writings of Moses. This circum- 
stance alone would lead us to conclude that his 
record is of w r holly different origin from theirs, 
and that it is not a mere fiction, but founded on 
historical facts. Moreover, it is more ancient 
than any other account which we have of the 
first age of the world. 

SECTION LVII. 

OF THE PROPAGATION OF THE HUMAN RACE. 

The Mosaic history informs us, with a sim- 
plicity which is characteristic of the age in 
which it was written, that God designed that 
the human race should be propagated, and 
should extend itself over the earth; and that he 
gave to man, as well as to other living crea- 
tures, the power to propagate his own species. 
Gen. i. 28, coll. v. 22. But as man consists of 
two essential parts, body and soul, the origin of 
both these in the posterity of Adam must be 
considered. 

I. Origin of the Human Body. 
The Hebrews generally describe the human 
body as derived directly from parents, as appears 
from the phrases, to come from the loins of the 
father, to be in his loins, &c. Gen. xlvi. 26; 
Heb. vii. 5, 10, seq. Sometimes, however, they 
of it, as taken out of the earth, from the 



earth, or dust ,• and so as returning to the earth, 
to the dust, &c. Vide s. 52, II. 2. The pas- 
sage, Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16, may perhaps be most 
easily explained in this way. The human body 
is there represented as being in a dark pit before 
its birth, and as formed in the depths of the earth, 
from lime and earth. The phrase fy* rv<»nnri, is 
in other places entirely synonymous with hvt&. 
Both Greeks and Hebrews represented the state 
of man before his birth as similar to that in 
which he will be after his death, and comprised 
both conditions under the words han& and a$r t s. 
Moses describes man as coming from the earth, 
and as returning to it. And so, according to the 
notions of the Hebrews, man is in the earth, as 
well before his birth as after his death ; and 
comes forth into the material world from that 
same vast, subterranean, invisible kingdom, to 
which he again returns. Job, i. 21 ; x. 9 ; 
xxxiii. 6. Eccl. xii. 7. Book of Wisdom, xv. 8. 

II. The Origin of the Human Soul. 

Respecting the manner of the propagation of 
the soul among the posterity of Adam, the sacred 
writers say nothing. The text, Eccl. xii. 7, 
gives us, indeed, clearly to understand that the 
soul comes from God in a different manner from 
the body (vide s. 51, 1.) ; but what this manner 
is, it does not inform us. The texts, Is. xlii. 5, 
and Job, xii. 10, which are frequently cited in 
this connexion, merely teach, that God gave to 
man breath and life, and so do not relate to this 
subject. Nor can anything respecting the man- 
ner of the propagation of the soul be determined 
from the appellation, Father of spirits, which was 
commonly given to God among the Jews, and 
which occurs, Heb. xii. 9. Vide Wetstein, in 
loc. This appellation implies nothing more than 
that, as man is the father of an offspring of the 
same nature with himself, so God, who is a 
Spirit, produces spirits. It is doubtless founded 
upon the description of God, Num. xvi. 22, as 
"the God of the spirits of ail flesh." The whole 
inquiry, therefore, with regard to the origin of 
human souls, is exclusively philosophical; and 
scriptural authority can bo adduced neither for 
nor against any theory which we may choose to 
adopt. But notwithstanding the philosophical 
nature of this subject, it cannot be wholly passed 
by in systematic theology, considering the in- 
fluence which it has upon the statement of the 
doctrine of original sin. It is on account of its 
connexion with this single doctrine (for it is not 
immediately connected with any other) that it 
has been so much agitated by theologians, espe-' 
cially since the time of Augustine. They have 
usually adopted that theory respecting the origin 
of the soul which was most favourable to the 
views which they entertained respecting the na- 
tive character of man. And hence the followers 
of Augustine and of Peiajnus, the advocates and 



WORKS OF GOD. 



201 



opponents of the doctrine of native depravity, are 
uniformly ranged on opposite sides of the ques- 
tion concerning- the origin of the soul. 

There have been three principal hypotheses 
on this subject, which will now be stated. 

1. The hypothesis of the pre- existence of souls. 
Those who support this hypothesis, called Prse- 
existiani, affirm that God, at the beginning of 
the world, created the souls of all men, which, 
however, are not united with the body before 
man is begotten or born into the world. This 
was the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato, and his 
followers, and of the cabalists among the Jews. 
Among these, however, there is a difference of 
opinion, some believing* that the soul was ori- 
ginally destined for the body, and unites with it 
of its own accord : others, with Plato, that it 
pertained originally to the divine nature, and is 
incarcerated in the body as a punishment for the 
sins which it committed in its heavenly state. 
This hypothesis found advocates in the ancient 
Christian church. Some Christians adopted the 
entire system of the Platonists, and held that 
the soul was a part of the divine nature, &c. 
Priscillianus and his followers either held these 
views, or were accused of holding them by Au- 
gustine, De Haeres. c. 70. All who professed 
to believe the pre-existence of the soul cannot 
be proved to have believed that it was a part of 
the divine nature. This is true of Origen, who 
agreed with the Platonists in saying, that souls 
sinned before they were united with a body, in 
which they were imprisoned as a punishment 
for their sins. Vide Huetius, in his " Origeni- 
anas," 1. ii. c. 2, quaest. 6. The pre-existence 
of the soul was early taught by Justin the Mar- 
tyr, Dial, cum Tryphone Jud. This has been 
the common opinion of Christian mystics of an- 
cient and modern times. They usually adhere 
to the Platonic theory, and regard the soul as a 
part of the divine nature, from which it proceeds, 
and to which it will again return. This doctrine 
of the pre-existence of the soul is, however, al- 
most entirely abandoned, because it is supposed 
irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin. 
And, if the mystics be excepted, it has been left 
almost without an advocate ever since the time 
of Augustine. 

2. The hypothesis of the creation of the soul. 
The advocates of this theory, called Creatiani, 
believe that the soul is immediately created by 
God whenever the body is begotten. A passage 
in Aristotle, De Gener. ii. 3, was supposed to 
contain this doctrine, at least, it was so under- 
stood by the schoolmen ; and in truth, Aristotle 
appears not to be far removed from the opinion 
ascribed to him. Cyril of Alexandria, and Theo- 
doret among the fathers in the Grecian church, 
were of this opinion ; and Ambrose, Hilarius, 
and Hieronymus, in the Latin church. The 
schoolmen almost universally professed this doc- 

26 



trine, and generally the followers of Pelagius, 
with whom the schoolmen for the most part 
agreed in their views with regard to the native 
character of man. For these views derived a 
very plausible vindication from the hypothesis 
that the soul was immediately created by God 
when it was connected with the body. The 
argument was this : — If God created the souls 
of men, he must have made them either pure 
and holy, or impure and sinful. The latter sup- 
position is inconsistent wiih the holiness of God, 
and consequently, the doctrine of the native de- 
pravity of the heart must be rejected. To affirm 
that God made the heart depraved, would be to 
avow the blasphemous doctrine, that God is the 
author of sin. The theory of the Creatiani was 
at first favoured by Augustine ; but he rejected 
it as soon as he saw how it was employed by 
the Pelagians. It has continued, however, to 
the present time, to be the common doctrine of 
the theologians of the Romish church, who in 
this follow after the schoolmen, like them, 
making little of native depravity, and much of 
the freedom of man in spiritual things. Among 
the protestant teachers, Melancthon was inclined 
to the hypothesis of the Creatiani; although, 
after the time of Luther, another hypothesis, 
which will shortly be noticed, was received with 
most approbation by protestants. Still many 
distinguished Lutheran teachers of the seven- 
teenth century followed Melancthon in his views 
concerning this doctrine — e. v g., G. Calixtus. 
In the reformed church, the hypothesis which 
we are now considering has had far more advo- 
cates than any other, though even they have not 
agreed in the manner of exhibiting it. Luther 
would have this subject left without being de- 
termined, and many of his contemporaries were 
of the same opinion. 

3. The hypothesis of the propagation cf the 
soul. According to this theory, the souls of 
children, as well as their bodies, are propagated 
from their parents. These two suppositions 
may be made : — Either the souls of children 
exist in their parents as real beings, (entia,) — 
like the seed in plants, and so have been propa- 
gated from Adam through successive genera- 
tions, which is the opinion of Leibnitz, in his 
"Theodicee," p. i. s. 91, — or they exist in their 
parents merely potentially, and come from them 
per propaginem, or traducem. Hence those 
who hold this opinion are called Traduciani. 
This opinion agrees with what Epicurus says of 
human seed, that it is "ffwrtaroj re xai -4-v^r g 
drtoarta^ua." This hypothesis formerly pre- 
vailed in the ancient western church. Accord- 
ing to Hieronymus, both Tertullian and Apolli- 
naris were advocates of this opinion, and even 
"maxima pars Occidentalium." Vide Epist. 
ad Marcellin. Tertullian entered very minutely 
into the discussion of this subject in his wor» 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



" De anima," c. 25, seq., where he often uses 
the word iradux ; but he is very obscure in what 
he has said. This is the hypothesis to which 
the opponents of the Pelagians have been most 
generally inclined, (vide No. 2,) though many 
who were rigorously orthodox would have no- 
thing definitely settled upon this subject. Even 
Augustine, who in some passages favoured the 
Greatiani, affirmed in his book " De origme 
animee," nullum (sententiam) temere offirmare 
oportebit. Since the reformation this theory has 
been more approved than any other, not only by 
philosophers and naturalists, but also by the 
Lutheran church. Luther himself appeared 
much inclined towards it, although he did not 
declare himself distinctly in its favour. But in 
the "Formula Concordiae" it was distinctly 
taught that the soul, as well as the body, was 
propagated by parents in ordinary generation. 
The reason why this theory is so much prefer- 
red by theologians is, that it affords the easiest 
solution of the doctrine of native depravity. If 
in the souls of our first progenitors the souls of 
all their posterity existed potentially, and the 
souls of the former were polluted and sinful, 
those of the latter must be so too. This hypo- 
thesis is not, however, free from objections; and 
it is very difficult to reconcile it with some phi- 
losophical opinions which are universally re- 
ceived. We cannot, for example, easily conceive 
how generation and propagation can take place 
without extension,- but we cannot predicate ex- 
tension of the soul without making it a material 
substance. Tertullian and other of the fathers 
affirm, indeed, that the soul of man, and that 
spirit in general, is not perfectly pure and sim- 
ple, but of a refined material nature, of which, 
consequently, extension may be predicated. 
Vide s. 19, ad finem, and s. 51, I. ad finem. 
And with these opinions the theory of the pro- 
pagation of the soul agrees perfectly well, cer- 
tainly far better, than with the opinions which 
we entertain respecting the nature of spirit; al- 
though even with these opinions we cannot be 
sure that a spiritual generation and propagation 
is impossible; for we do not understand the 
true nature of spirit, and cannot therefore deter- 
mine with certainty what is or is not possible 
respecting it. There are some psychological 
phenomena which seem to favour the theory 
now under consideration; and hence it has al- 
ways been the favourite theory of psychologists 
and physicians. The natural disposition of 
children not unfrequently resembles that of their 
parents; and the mental excellences and imper- 
fections of parents are inherited nearly as often 
by their children as any bodily attributes. 
Again; the powers of the soul, like those of the 
body, are at first weak, and attain their full de- 
velopment and perfection only by slow degrees. 
Many more phenomena of the same sort might 



be mentioned. But after all that may be said, 
we must remain in uncertainty with regard to 
the origin of the human soul. Important objec- 
tions can be urged against these arguments, and 
any others that might be offered. And if the 
metaphysical theory of the entire simplicity of 
the human soul be admitted, the whole subject 
remains involved in total darkness. 



ARTICLE VII. 



OF THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING ANGELS. 



SECTION LVIII. 

OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERN- 
ING ANGELS, AND SOME INTRODUCTORY HISTO- 
RICAL REMARKS. 

I. The Importance of this Doctrine. 

1. Its practical importance. By one class 
of theologians the practical importance of this 
doctrine has been very much exaggerated ; while 
others, who are mostly modern writers, have 
denied it all practical utility, and have gone so 
far as to insist that it should be entirely omitted 
in common religious instruction. To these views 
we can by no means assent, if we make the 
Bible the source of our knowledge and the 
foundation of our belief in religious truth. Nor 
should we allow ourselves to entertain exagge- 
rated views of this subject, the tendency of 
which must be injurious. In the manner in 
which this doctrine is now generally held among 
Christians, we see the effect of the levity and 
irreverence with which the doctrines of the Bible 
have often been treated in late years by theolo- 
gical writers. The contempt With which the 
belief in angels is often spoken of among com- 
mon Christians is not to be wondered at, when 
we consider how it has been treated by the 
teachers of religion in our schools, universities, 
and pulpits. Those who are preparing to be 
teachers of religion should take warning from 
the evils which they see produced by the light 
and irreverent manner in which the doctrines of 
the Bible have been lately exhibited. Vide Rein- 
hard's excellent sermon, " Wie sich Christen 
bey so mannichfachen Meinungen fiber die 
Geisterwelt zu erhalten haben," published in 
the collection for the year 1795. 

Angels belong to that invisible world of which 
we, who are composed of body and spirit, can 
form only very obscure and imperfect notions. 
Their existence, and their influence on the ma- 
terial w r orld and human affairs, are not within 
the cognizance of our senses, and can be known 
to us only by revelation. They are not men- 



WORKS OF GOD. 



203 



tioned by Moses in his cosmogony, (though he 
appears from many passages to have believed 
in them;) because he confines himself in that 
account strictly to the visible world. And so 
he mentions only the breath of life in man, al- 
though he believed beyond dispute that he pos- 
sessed also a reasonable soul. 

2. Its theoretical importance. To the theolo- 
gian, the interpreter, and the student of the his- 
tory of the human mind, this doctrine is of great 
interest and importance. For {a) angels are 
very frequently introduced in the sacred books 
of the Jews and Christians. They are repre- 
sented as standing in various relations to men, 
and as actively employed in our affairs. To 
deny, therefore, the existence and agency of 
good and bad angels, is plainly contrary to the 
holy scriptures. The opinion of the Sadducees, 
that "there is neither angel nor spirit," (Acts, 
xxiii.'8,) is always rejected as false and un- 
scriptural by the writers of the New Testament. 
Notwithstanding, then, the disagreeableness of 
the doctrine concerning angels to the taste of 
the age, it must be exhibited by the religious 
teacher, whose invariable duty it is to conform 
his instructions to the word of God. (b) Many 
texts of the Bible which relate to this doctrine, 
by being misunderstood, have led the great mul- 
titude into opinions respecting the power and 
agency of angels, which are inconsistent with 
the character of God, and of an immoral ten- 
dency, by enabling men to shift the guilt of their 
actions from themselves to others. And these 
mistaken and hurtful opinions have been fos- 
tered by the incautious and indefinite -manner 
in which the teachers of religion have some- 
times spoken. 

3. Some important doctrines are exhibited in 
the Bible as standing in close connexion with 
the doctrines respecting angels; and for this 
reason, if for no other, an accurate knowledge 
*)f it, and of the manner in which it is taught 
in the scriptures, is indispensable. The doc- 
trine respecting sin, and the origin of it ; the 
temptation of our first parents; the providence 
of God ; the state of men hereafter, when they 
will be brought into still closer connexion with 
spirits ; these and other subjects are nearly re- 
lated to the doctrine under consideration. 

4. A critical investigation of this subject, in 
which the declarations of the holy scriptures 
should be made the chief object of attention, 
would tend to free men from many superstitions 
which are in the highest degree injurious. In 
this view, this doctrine deserves the special at- 
tention of the teacher of religion. For the 
mistakes which have prevailed with regard to 
the agency of angels, and especially of bad an- 
gels, have been a most fruitful source of super- 
stitions destructive of the happiness, virtue, and 
piety of mankind. To correct these supersti- 



tious mistakes, and at the same time to teach 
with wisdom and judgment what we are taught 
in the Bible with regard to the agency of angels, 
is the duty of the Christian minister. 

II. Introductory Historical Remarks. 

The idea that there are certain spirits inter- 
mediate between God and the human soul, and 
employed as the instruments of Divine Provi- 
dence, is very widely diffused among men, and 
has often attracted the attention and, elicited the 
inquiries even of philosophers. The opinions 
of the Hebrews upon this subject are the prin- 
cipal object of our present attention; still, as 
the opinions both of Jews and Christians may 
be illustrated by those of other nations, we shall 
bestow some attention upon the latter. From 
the writings of Moses we are justified in con- 
cluding that the early ancestors of the Israel- 
ites — the patriarchs, received by revelation some 
more full and particular knowledge respecting 
angels, which they transmitted to their descend- 
ants. But the conceptions which they formed 
on this subject — the images under which they 
represented angels to their own minds, as well 
as the expressions which they employed to de- 
signate their ideas — were influenced by the cir- 
cumstance of time and place in which they found 
themselves, and by their whole external condi- 
tion. To such circumstances the providence of 
God evermore conforms. God treats and go- 
verns men more humano, and adapts the revela 
tions which he makes to their comprehension 
and mode of thinking. Hence the variety in 
the manner in which the divine revelations are 
made. To illustrate the terms employed in the 
Bible on this subject, and some of the figurative 
representations which it uses, is the object of 
the following remarks. 

Jehovah was worshipped by the ancestors of 
the Israelites as a household god. They naturally 
conceived of him at that early age as resembling 
themselves. Vide s. 18. Whenever he acted, 
he conformed to the manner in which men act. 
He was not visibly present, but he knew all 
things, interested himself in the affairs of men, 
and employed himself actively among them. 
In pursuance of his purposes he also employed 
his servants, who according to the analogy above 
stated, were conceived of as household servants, 
belonging to the father of a family, and engaged 
in the execution of his commands. They fre- 
quently acted in his name, as his ambassadors, 
and had committed to them the oversight, care, 
and guardianship of men. This notion of them 
is discerned in all the ancient names by which 
they were called — viz., mrp ^p, (messenger, 
ambassador,) « »rn#p, fyfin ■>&']>, Ps. ciii. 20, 21 • 
Ps. civ. 4. They are commonly invisible, as 
God is; although, like him, when occasion re- 
quires, they can appear to men. Hence they 



204 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



were regarded as spirits, though not at that 
early period, in the strict and purely metaphy- 
sical sense of this term. Vide s. 19, II. 

Such conceptions as these respecting spiritual 
agents being very familiar and deeply interest- 
ing to those at that age, would very naturally 
occur to them in their dreams. Now dreams 
were regarded by the whole ancient world as of 
divine origin, and as the vehicles of the divine 
communications to men. By seeing angels in 
their dreams, the belief of men in their existence 
was therefore still more strengthened. So in 
Homer, (Iliad, xxiii. 103, seq.,) Achilles was 
first convinced of the real existence of the souls 
of the departed in the under world by the appa- 
rition of the spirit of his friend Patroclus in a 
dream. And it was perhaps in compliance with 
the prevailing belief that dreams were sent by 
God to instruct mankind, that he actually made 
use of them as one vehicle of his revelations to 
Abraham, Jacob, and the other patriarchs. Vide 
Gen. xxviii. 12, &c. 

When the notion of angels had once become 
definite, and the belief of their existence con- 
firmed, their agency in human affairs was very 
naturally and easily determined. Everything 
which took place in such a way that the relation 
between cause and effect was not seen — every- 
thing which could not be assigned to a natural 
cause, was ascribed to the immediate agency of 
God, and of these his invisible servants. When 
God afforded assistance, especially in an un- 
usual, unexpected, and unhoped-for manner, he 
was supposed to do it through the instrument- 
ality of angels ; and in general, when anything 
took place under the divine agency or permis- 
sion, the mediate causes of which were conceal- 
ed, angels were regarded as the agents. In 
short, they were regarded as spirits engaged in 
the service of God, and employed as the instru- 
ments of his providence. And this is an opinion 
which the sacred writers do not merely record 
as having been held by others, and which they 
leave to depend upon its own merits, but which 
they themselves adopt as their own, and sanction 
with their own authority. Vide Gen. xvi. 7 — 
12; 2 Kings, xix. 35 (the destruction in the 
Assyrian camp) ; Psalm xxxiv. 7 ; xci. 11, 12; 
Luke, xvi. 22 ; i. 13, 28 ; Heb. i. 14. 

But various objects in the material world, and 
even inanimate things, were also sometimes 
called the angels of God, because they were em- 
ployed by him in the execution of his purposes. 
This appellation will appear more natural, if 
we consider that inanimate things, in which 
there appeared to be motion and a kind of self- 
actuating power, were regarded by the ancient 
world as really possessing life and animation. 
Thus perhaps we may account for it that the 
appellation angel is so often figuratively applied 
to things of the material world by the Hebrews, 



especially in their poetic writings. Vide Ps. 
lxxviii. 49 ; civ. 4 (wind and lightning), coll. Ps. 
cxlviii. 8, (cf. Morus, p. 89, Not. ad. s. 6;) 1 
Chronicles, xxi. 14 — 16; Acts, xii. 23. 

The dwelling-place or principal residence of 
the angels was always represented as with God 
in heaven, the abode of the blessed. Hence in 
the scriptural division of the creatures of God 
into those in heaven and those on earth, angels 
are always enumerated with the stars, as belong- 
ing to the former class. So Ps. cxlviii. 1 — 6, 
coll. ver. 7 — 13. 

2. When the Hebrews became acquainted 
with more powerful rulers than the heads of 
their families, and began to abandon their early 
patriarchal mode of life, they looked upon God 
in a different manner from w r hat they had done 
before, and thought of him under the image of 
a mighty oriental monarch, and compared his 
dwelling and his providence with the palace, 
court, and government of a powerful earthly 
ruler. The terms which they now used, and 
the figures which they employed, were all bor- 
rowed from this comparison. It is natural for 
men to compare God with the most elevated 
and powerful beings whom they see on the earth, 
and to pay to him those external services of 
reverence and homage which are paid to royal 
personages. Hence the name i\hv, and other 
royal predicates, were now given to God. He 
was represented as the universal Lord and Judge, 
seated upon a throne, surrounded by hosts of 
angels and servants, ready to execute his com- 
mands, and standing before him in different 
offices, divisions, and ranks, distinguished 
among themselves, like other beings, in dignity 
and employment. This conception of the an- 
gels as standing in different ranks and offices 
is at the foundation of many of the figurative, 
representations in the Bible; which representa- 
tions, however, though figurative, are intended 
to teach the truth that there are differences of 
rank and dignity among the angels, and that 
some have nearer access to God than others. 
Vide 1 Kings, xxii. 19 ; Isa. vi. 2 ; Dan. vii. 10 ; 
Luke, i. 19 ; Matt, xviii. 10. The same altera- 
tion took place in the external rites of divine 
service, which now became more complex and 
magnificent; and doubtless much of the in- 
creased splendour of the Jewish ritual may be 
traced to the influence of this comparison of God 
with an earthly king. In the matter of external 
service, God conformed, as far as he could do so 
without injury to the truth, to their conceptions 
and feelings. An earthly prince bears some 
resemblance to God, and the servants of Divine 
Providence to the servants and agents of a prince. 
A useful work on this subject is Paulsen's 
"Regierung der Morgenlander ;" Altona, 175C, 
4to. 

3. The servants of princes are accustomed to 



WORKS OF GOD. 



205 



give account to their superiors of the state of 
the provinces over which they have charge, and 
of the good or ill conduct of those placed under 
their government, and are then employed by 
their superiors, in return, to dispense rewards 
and punishments. Now from the resemblance 
above noticed between a king and his servants 
and God and his angels, whatever was said in re- 
spect to the former was very naturally transferred 
to the latter. And so God is described as sending 
forth his messengers, bearing good or evil, pro- 
sperity or adversity, reward or punishment, to 
men, according to their deserts. Vide Ps. 
lxxviii. 49. Hence we may explain the fact 
that sickness and other calamities inflicted by 
God are ascribed in the scriptures to the angels, 
through whom, as his ministers, he inflicts 
them. Vide Ps. lxxviii. 49 ; xxxiv. 8 ; 2 Kings, 
vi. 16, 17. The angel of God is representod as 
the author of the pestilence in David's time ; 2 
Sam. xxiv. 16; coll. Exod. xii. 13, 23. 

It should be remarked here that in what is 
now extant of the writings of the Hebrews be- 
fore the Babylonian captivity, the title evil an- 
gels does not properly denote beings who are 
morally bad in their own nature; but, on the 
contrary, spirits whose nature is good, and who 
on this very account are employed by God, and 
who, in whatever they perform, act under his 
will and direction. The reason of this title is 
to be found, therefore, not in themselves, but in 
the nature of the work in which they are em- 
ployed ; and the very same angel is called evil 
or good, according as he has it in commisoion 
to dispense prosperity or adversity, rewards 
or punishments. So in Homer, when the deity 
inflicts misfortune, he is called xaxc$ Salfiuv, 
Odys. x. 64, coll. II. xi. 61, xx. 87. Some 
have, indeed, attempted to shew that the Satan 
mentioned in Job, i. and ii., was an evil spirit 
in his own nature; but this is uncertain. He 
is not represented as being himself wicked and 
opposed to the designs cf God, but rather as a 
complainant or accuser. The whole representa- 
tion contained in these chapters seems to be 
taken from a human court and transferred to 
heaven. Vide Michaelis, in loc. 

It is not until the time of the exile, or shortly 
after it, that we find distinct traces of the doc- 
trine that there are angels who were once good, 
but who revolted from God, and are now become 
wicked themselves, and the authors of evil in 
the world. The probability is, therefore, that this 
doctrine was first developed among the Jews 
during their residence at Chaldea and shortly 
afterwards. The same thing is true of many 
other doctrines of the Bible which were not re- 
vealed at first, but were gradually made known 
by means of the prophets at later periods. We 
cannot, however, certainly prove that this doc- 
trine was wholly unknown to the Jews pre- 



viously to the captivity. It is enough for us to 
know that after this time the Jewish prophets, 
as acknowledged messengers and ambassadors 
of God, themselves authorized it, and taught it 
in their addresses and writings ; and that it is 
accordingly now to be received by us as a doc- 
trine of the ancient Jewish revelation. In bring- 
ing the doctrine concerning angels to a fuller 
development, the following circumstances were 
made use of by Divine Providence. 

The Persians, and perhaps also the Chal- 
deans, (though this is more doubtful,) held the 
doctrine of dualism, which afterwards prevailed 
so widely in the East. This doctrine is, that 
there are two coeternal and independent beings, 
from the one of whom all good, and from the 
other, all evil proceeds. Now the doctrine of 
the Hebrews respecting good and bad angels, 
though it appears at first sight to resemble this, 
is essentially different, and cannot therefore have 
been derived from it. But when the Hebrews 
were brought under the dominion of the Persians 
it became necessary, in order to prevent them 
from falling into the wide-spread doctrine of 
their masters, that they should be instructed 
more minutely than they had previously been, 
or needed to be, with regard to good and bad 
angels. And so the later prophets brought to 
light the agency of good and bad angels in 
many events of the early Jewish history, with 
which angels had never been known to have 
had any connexion. The fall of man — e. g., 
had not been ascribed by Moses to the agency 
of an evil spirit; but this event was afterwards 
ascribed to the influence of Satan, and of this 
Christ himself approves in John, viii. Again ; 
the numbering of the people by David is de- 
scribed in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, as a crime to which 
he was given up by God, in anger against him ; 
but this same thing is afterwards ascribed in 
1 Chron. xxi. 1, to the direct influence of Sa- 
tan. In the same way many events were after- 
wards ascribed to good angels, whose agency 
in them had not before been known. Thus the 
giving of the law was not ascribed by Moses to 
the ministry of angels ; and this fact is first in- 
timated in Psalm lxviii. 17, and afterwards 
more clearly taught in the New Testament. 

Some periods of Jewish history were more 
remarkable than others for the appearance and 
agency of angels. The patriarchal age is de- 
scribed in the books written before the captivity 
as most distinguished for the visible appearance 
of angels among men, both with and without 
dreams and visions. During the age of Moses 
and Joshua, although angels are mentioned, 
they do not seem to have appeared. The com- 
munications of God to men were at that time 
made mostly through the oracles of the pro- 
phets. Angels again appear during the period 
of the Judges. But after the time of Samuel 
S 



206 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



they do not again appear in the history of the 
Jews before the Babylonian exile ; at which 
time, and shortly afterwards, they are once 
more introduced. Shortly before the birth of 
John the Baptist, angels were again very fre- 
quently seen, and many communications were 
made through their instrumentality. But the 
age of Christ and the apostles is distinguished 
above all others for the frequent appearance and 
interposition of angels, and especially for the 
agency of evil spirits upon the minds and bodies 
of men. In view of the whole we may say, 
with regard to the appearance of angels, what 
Paul said, Heb. i. I, with regard to revelations 
in general, that they were 7to%v(ispws xai ito'kv- 
tportcos. 

4. Other nations, ancient and modern, have 
entertained opinions respecting some interme- 
diate spirits, and their influence on the world and 
on man, somewhat resembling those of the 
Israelites, though not necessarily derived from 
them. Such were the opinions of the Egyp- 
tians, according to the testimony of Diodorus 
Siculus, and also of the Greeks. The latter, 
however, do not appear in the early stages of 
their history to have had the idea of interme- 
diate spirits (br angels. The 8atpovs$ of Homer 
are only ^sot under a different name, though, in- 
deed, the offices assigned to them and to many 
of the gods by the Greeks are not mors elevated 
than those assigned by the Hebrews and other 
nations to their angels or intermediate spirits. 
The Grecian philosophers, however, for the most 
part, believed that besides God and the human 
soul, and intermediate between them, there were 
other spiritual existences. They proceeded on 
the supposition, confirmed by so many experi- 
ments and observations, that there is in nature 
a general connexion or chain (<jsipa), by which 
all creatures are most intimately united together; 
that each class of beings borders upon and runs 
into others; so that there is no break in the de- 
scending scale from the highest to the lowest. 
When, therefore, they considered the immense 
interval between God and their own souls, they 
naturally concluded that it must be occupied by 
intermediate beings, subordinate to God, but. 
superior to man ; and that these beings must 
themselves exist in various degrees of perfection. 
Such appear to have been the opinions of Py- 
thagoras. According to the » Carmina Aurea," 
and Diogenes Laert. viii. segm. 23, he believed 
that besides the .Supreme Being there were four 
orders of intelligences — viz., gods, demons, he- 
roes, and men. To the first three he ascribed 
about the same offices as were ascribed by the 
Hebrews to their angels ; so that his theory 
really seems somewhat to resemble the Biblical 
doctrine. Considerably different from these are 
the views of Plato. Some have indeed thought 
that they could see in the Phaedrus of Plato, in 



his book "De legibus," and in some other writ- 
ings of his, the traces of a distinction between 
good and bad demons. But this distinction, as 
Ficinus justly remarks, was first made by the 
followers of Plato, and especially by the Jews 
and Christians, who philosophized according to 
the principles of the new Platonic school, and 
was then ascribed by them to their great master. 
The learned Jews of the first and second centu- 
ries of the Christian era, being conversant with 
the Grecian, and especially with the Platonic 
philosophy, adopted the doctrines of these dif- 
ferent schools, and connected them with the 
doctrines of the Jewish religion; and many 
Christian teachers proceeded in the same way, 
and connected the principles of the Platonic 
school, with regard to the doctrine of angels 
among others, with what they were taught from 
the Bible, and indeed endeavoured to interpret 
the Bible in accordance with these Platonic 
principles. Aristotle likewise admitted certain 
intelligences as intermediate beings between 
God and men, and his theory on this subject was 
adopted by the schoolmen. The stoics, too, 
allowed of some intermediate spirits. Epicurus, 
on the contrary, denied the existence of angels 
altogether; and in this he was consistent with 
himself, since he denied the providence of God, 
whose instruments these intermediate beings 
were supposed to be by other philosophers. 
Among the Jews, the Sadducees denied the ex- 
istence of angels. Vide Acts, xxiii. 8. They 
seem to have regarded the passages of the Old 
Testament in which angels are spoken of as 
figurative, and the whole account of them as 
mythological. [The existence of angels has 
been wholly denied in modern times by Hobbes, 
Spinoza, and Edelmann.] 

Note. — We have no great abundance of useful 
works on the general history of the doctrine of 
angels. Most of them take too confined and 
narrow a view of the subject. They merely re- 
cord the opinions of Jews and Christians, with- 
out shewing i n what manner these opinions were 
developed and modified. Among these works 
are the following : Dr. Joach. Oporin, Erlaiiterte 
Lehre von den Engeln; Hamburg, 1735, 8vo. 
Jac. Ode, De Angelis, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 
1739, 4to, (a book in which everything relative 
to this subject is brought together, but without 
judgment or discrimination.) Jo. Fr. Cotta, 
Diss. ii. historiam succinctam doctrinse de an- 
gelis exhibentes; Tubingse, 1765 — 67, 4to. 
Also, Petavius, Theol. Dogm. torn, iii., and 
Cud worth, Syst. Intellectuale, c. 5, with the 
notes of Mosheim. There are some treatises of 
very unequal value in Eichhorn's " Bibliothek 
der bib. Lit." and-, in Henke's "Magazin fur 
Exeg. Kirchengesch, u. s. w." The treatise of 
Ewald, entitled "Die Bibellehre von guten and 
bosen Engeln," published in his " Christlichen 



WORKS OF GOD. 



207 



Monatschrift," for the year 1800, s. 326, f. and 
395, f., deserves to be recommended to the pe- 
rusal of the Christian teacher. 

SECTION LIX. 

F THE APPELLATIONS OF ANGELS ; THEIR NA- 
TURE ; PROOFS OF THEIR EXISTENCE ; THEIR 
CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE; AND THE 
CLASSES INTO WHICH THEY ARE DIVIDED. 

I. Appellations of Angels, 

The most common appellation given them is, 
tjNSp, tpxbn* The correspondent term in Hel- 
lenistic Greek is ayyj?ioj, messenger, servant, 
envoy, ambassador. This name is sometimes 
given to men who are engaged in any offices in 
the employ of others. Est nomen muneris, non 
natures, as is justly remarked by Morus, p. 86. 
Vide Num. xx. 14, 16; Josh. vi. 17; James, 
ii. 25. Hence oyy£?io& Exx%ifila$, in the Apo- 
calypse, and to<J>^ dyyakoij, (the disciples of 
Christ, the apostles,) in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The 
analogy upon which these names are founded 
has already been exhibited, s. 58, II. 1. 

Another name given to angels, besides these 
and others which are derived from their office 
and employment, is, dti'Sn \n, children of God; 
Job, xxxviii. 7, " Where wast thou when I laid 
the foundations of the earth — when the morning 
stars-sang together, and the sons of God shouted 
for joy?" Here, indeed, it may be objected, 
that sons of God may be a poetic expression sy- 
nonymous with morning stars, with which it is 
parallel in the construction. But no such objec- 
tion lies against the passage, Job, i. 6, where a 
solemn assembly of the sons of God is described. 
And since even earthly kings were sometimes 
called sons of God, there can be no doubt that the 
Hebrew idiom would permit the application of 
this name to angels, the inhabitants of heaven. 
Hence they were called by the Jewsfamilia Dei 
ccslestis. Cf. Ephes. iii. 15, and Heb. xii. 22, 
23, where the souls of the pious dead are in- 
cluded in this heavenly family. 

Still another title, which, in the opinion of 
many, is given to angels, is o^riSa. That this 
title may be given them is certain; since it is 
given even to rulers, judges, and all those who 
act as the vicegerents of God upon the earth. 
But the argument to prove that this title is ac- 
tually given to angels is mostly founded on the 
fact that the LXX. render the word dtt?n, by 
ayye'KoL, in some texts of the Old Testament, 
where, however, the context does not make this 
rendering absolutely necessary. The texts "ited 
are Ps. viii. 6, and xcvii. 7, in both of which the 
original o^nSx is rendered by the LXX. d'yysTioc, — 
a rendering which is approved and retained by 
Paul, Heb. i. 6, and ii. 7. I am at present in- 
clined to believe that even the original writer 



intended to denote angels by this title in both 
places, and especially in Psalm viii. 

II. The Nature of Angels. 

The only conception which we form of angels 
is, that they are spirits of a higher nature and 
nobler endowments than men possess. They are 
described by Morus (p. 94, s. 14) as spiriius deo 
inferior es, hominibus sitperiores. In making our 
estimate of them, we must compare them with 
the human soul as the measure. The human 
soul possesses understanding and free will, or, a 
rational and moral nature. Hence we conclude, 
via eminentise, that other spirits — angels and God 
himself — must possess the same; angels, in a 
far higher degree than men, and God, in the 
highest possible perfection. With respect to 
the nature of angels, we are informed in the 
Bible (a) that they far excel us in powers and 
perfections, Matt. xxii. 30, seq.; 2 Pet. ii. 11. 
(6) They are expressly called spirits (rtvevfiafa ;) 
Heb. i. 14, Ttvevfj-a-ta heiifovpyixd. And the at- 
tributes which belong to spirits — understanding 
and will, are frequently ascribed to them — e. g., 
Luke, xv. 10; James, ii. 19. 

Note. — The question, whether angels have a 
body, (more refined, indeed, than the human 
body,) is left undecided in the Bible. And the 
texts by which it has been supposed to be an- 
swered (Ps. civ. 4, and others) have no relation 
to this question. Still it is not improbable, from 
the prevailing opinions of the ancient world, that 
the sacred writers believed that angels some- 
times assumed a body in which they became 
visible to men. Vide Morus, p. 88, n. 2, supra. 
The arguments <i priori which are frequently, 
adduced in behalf of this opinion are unsatisfac- 
tory. Thus it is said, that as spirits angels 
could not act upon the material world without 
assuming a body. But if God, as a Spirit, may 
act on matter without a body, why may not other 
spirits do the same? We cannot in any case 
determine, a priori, what can or cannot be done 
by spiritual beings. This question is therefore 
generally dismissed by modern theologians with 
the remark, that the body of angels, if they have 
one, must be very unlike the human body. 

The Christian fathers of the Platonic school 
ascribed to all spirits, the supreme God alone ex- 
cepted, a subtile body, so subtile as to be invi- 
sible to us, and imperceptible by any of our 
senses. So Justin the Martyr, Irenteus, Athen- 
agoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and 
Augustine. They appear to have entertained 
about the same notion of the bodies of angels 
as the Greeks had of the bodies of their gods. 
Vide Homer, II. v. 339—342. Justin the Mar- 
tyr, (Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. c. 57,) and soma 
others, believed that angels partook of heavenly 
nourishment, as the gods of the Greeks partook 
of nectar and ambrosia ; that, like them, the} 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



could at choice become visible or invisible to 
«*ien, &c. The latter opinion is quite ancient, 
as appears from the account of Balaam in Num. 
xxii. 22 — 34, and from the representation of 
Horner, in the Odyss. xvi. 160, seq., where 
Minerva is visible to Ulysses, and not to Tele- 
machus — 

Ov yap 7rw jravreaai Ssol (paivovrai hapyug. 

The ass, however, in the one case, and the 
dogs in the other, perceived the apparition, and 
were frightened. So again in the Iliad, i. 198, 
Achilles beheld Minerva, who stood before him, 
Twv 8' aXkiov ovt?is opato. 

At the second Nicene Council, in the year 
787, it was established as a doctrine of the ca- 
tholic church, that angels have a thin body of 
fire or air. Afterwards, however, Peter of Lom- 
bardy, (Sent. 1. ii. dist. 8,) and many other 
schoolmen, maintained the opposite opinion, 
and held that angels had no body of their own, 
{corpus proprium,') but could assume one in 
order to become visible. So Gassendus repre- 
sents that they assume corpora extraor dinar ia, 
when they design to act upon the material 
world. This opinion of the schoolmen respect- 
ing angels was founded upon the philosophy of 
their great master, Aristotle, who makes his in- 
telligences entirely incorporeaL Vide s. 58, ad 
finem. 

III. Proofs of the Existence of Angels. 

1. Some theologians and philosophers have 
undertaken to prove the existence of angels by 
aguments a priori. Their most plausible argu- 
ment is that derived from the unbroken grada- 
tion and chain in which all beings are seen to 
exist — an argument which was employed by 
many even of the ancient heathen philosophers. 
Vide s. 58, II. 4. But although the possibility 
of the existence of angels cannot be disproved 
by any valid arguments a priori, so neither can 
the reality of their existence be proved satisfac- 
torily by arguments of this nature. All that 
such arguments can do is, to render probable 
that which must depend for proof on different 
evidence ; but to deny the existence of angels 
on the ground of arguments a priori, is ex- 
tremely absurd. Cf. Morus, p. 86, s. 3. These 
proofs are stated, after the method of Wolf, by 
Reinbeck, in his " Betrachtungeniiber die Augs. 
Conf." th. i. s. 298 ; and also by Ewald, in a 
treatise on this subject. 

2. The sacred writers affirmed the existence 
of angels so clearly that it is hardly credible 
that any one should seriously doubt their opi- 
nions on this subject. He might as well doubt 
whether Homer, who speaks of the gods on 
every page, really believed in them. Jesus and 
the apostles rejected the doctrine of the Saddu- 
cees, that there are no angels, as a gross error, 



Acts, xxiii. 8. The Pharisees believed in the 
existence of angels, and contributed by their 
influence to render this doctrine almost univer- 
sally prevalent among the Jews. In this parti- 
cular, Jesus and the apostles agreed fully with 
the Pharisees, as appears from innumerable 
texts in the New Testament. In Matt. xxii. 30, 
Christ expressly and designedly professes his 
belief in the existence of angels, in the presence 
of the Sadducees; also in Matt. viii. 28 — 34. 
Paul, too, as is very clear from his writings, 
believed in the real existence of angels, and re- 
tained and sanctioned, as a Christian and an 
apostle, many opinions on this subject which 
he had learned in the schools of the Pharisees. 
Thus, for example, both he and Stephen (Acts, 
vii. 53) held, in common with the Pharisees, 
that the Mosaic law was given through the 
ministry of angels, Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2. 
And he labours through the whole of the first 
two chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews to 
prove that Jesus Christ was superior to the an- 
gels, and a messenger of God of a more exalted 
character than they. His meaning cannot be, 
as some have strangely supposed, that Christ 
was superior to beings whom he supposed to 
exist merely in the fancy of the Jews. He has 
so interwoven the theory of the Pharisees with 
his own instructions on this subject, as plainly 
to shew that while he did not countenance 
those fabulous representations, with which he 
must certainly have been acquainted, in their 
schools, he yet regarded their doctrine as essen- 
tially true. 

IV. The Creation of Angels,- their Perfections, 
and Number. 

1. The Bible teaches us nothing definitely 
respecting the origin of angels. But when it 
represents all things as coming from God, it 
must clearly be understood to imply that angels 
also derive their existence from him. Paul says 
expressly, Col. i. 16, "God made all things, 
visible and invisible." Their creation is not, 
indeed, mentioned by Moses in his account of 
the creation. And as he undertakes to describe 
the creation of only the visible world, their crea- 
tion did not come within the compass of his 
plan. Vide s. 49. 

The question has been asked, On which day 
of the creation were the angels made ? and at 
least an historical view of the opinions enter- 
tained on this subject must here be exhibited, 
(a) Some have held, that the angels were cre- 
ated before the visible world, and that this is 
the reason why Moses does not mention them. 
Of this opinion were Origen, Chrysostom, Hie- 
ronymus, John of Damascus, and others, among 
the ancients; and among the moderns, Heil- 
mann, Michaelis, and others, (b) Others held 
that angels were created after man, because the 



WORKS OF GOD. 



209 



Creator proceeded in his work from the lower 
to the higher ; and so, as his last upon the earth, 
created man. So Gennadius, in the fifth cen- 
tury. But this opinion was opposed by Augus- 
tine. It has been advocated in modern times 
by Schubert of Helmstadt. (c) Others still 
maintain that angels were created on the first 
of the six days, when, as they suppose, the hu- 
man soul and other simple and incorporeal 
beings were made, and were stationed as spec- 
tators, o employed as assistants, of the remain- 
ing work So Theodoret of Mopsvestia, Augus- 
tine, Peter of Lombardy, and others; and in 
modern times, Calovius, who appealed to Job, 
xxxviii. 7, (vide No. I.,) Seiler, and others. 
Some hold that they were created on the fourth 
day, because the sun, moon, and stars were then 
created, in connexion with which angelic spirits 
are always enumerated. 

2. The perfections with which angels were 
endued can be ascertained only from the analogy 
of those of the human soul. Vide No IT. and 
Morus, p. 88, s. 9. Their intellectual poviers 
must be greater than our own; they must pos 
sess more strength of thought and clearness of 
conception. Their moral powers, the perfections 
of their will, must also be greater than ours. 
For them, therefore, to persevere in holiness, 
must accordingly be easier than for men ; and 
hence the guilt incurred by them in their fall is 
represented as far greater than that incurred by 
men in their apostasy. We are unable, however, 
to determine the exact measure of angelic 
powers and excellences. From the fact that 
men have a state of probation {status gratias) 
allowed them, in which their virtue may be ex- 
ercised and confirmed, and from which they 
pass to a state of perfection, enjoyment, and re- 
ward, {status glorias,) we conclude, that the 
case is the same with regard to angels. The 
New Testament says nothing expressly respect- 
ing the perfections of angels, except that they 
possess greater strength and power than men ; 
2 Pet. ii. 11, ltf%vC xol hwauzi usl£ov£$. Hence 
the phrase ayya^oc. hwo.^^, 2 Thess. i. 7. 
Hence also the word ayytXoj is used adjectively, 
like ©£o$, to denote the excellence of a thing; 
8 Sam. xiv. 17, 20, the wisdom of angels; Ps. 
Ixxviii. 25, the food of angels; Acts, vi. 15, 
the face of angels. 

3. The number of the angels is by some re- 
presented as very great; and they justify this 
representation by arguments a priori. God has 
made, they say, a great number of creatures of 
all the different kinds, even in the material 
world; and it is therefore just to suppose that 
in the more exalted sphere of spirit the creatures 
of his power are still more numerous. And, 
indeed, the Bible always describes God as sur- 
rounded by a great multitude of heavenly ser- 
vants. Vide Dan. vii. 10 ; Ps. ixviii. 17 ; Jude, 

27 



ver. 14; Matt. xxvi. 53. Cf. s. 58, and Morus, 
p. 89, note. 

V. Division of Angels. 
Angels are divided into good and evil in refer- 
ence to their moral condition. There is no dis- 
tinct mention of apostate angels in the Bible be- 
fore the Babylonian captivity; though from this 
silence it does not follow that the idea of them 
was wholly unknown to the ancient Hebrews. 
Vide s. 58, II. 3. This idea, however, even if 
it had before existed, was more distinctly re- 
vealed and developed at the time of the exile, 
and afterwards. It was sanctioned by Christ 
and the apostles, and constituted a part of their 
faith, as really as it did of the faith of the Jews 
who were contemporary with them. The name, 
evil or bad angels, was taken from Ps. Ixxviii. 
49, the only passage in which it occurs in the 
Bible; though even in this passage it does not 
denote disobedient angels, evil in a moral re- 
spect; for in this sense the phrase evil angels is 
never used in the Bible ; nor, on the contrary, 
is the phrase good angels ever used to denote 
those who are morally good, though indeed they 
are sometimes called holy in this sense. But 
although this term is not derived from the 
sacred writers, but from the schoolmen, it should 
unquestionably be retained, since the meaning 
it conveys is wholly accordant with the doctrine 
of the Bible. The term angel is applied in the 
Bible to evil spirits only in reference to their 
former state, when they were still the servants 
of God. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 4. Since they have 
apostatized, they can no more, strictly speaking, 
be denominated his angels — i. e., servants, mes- 
sengers. On the contrary, they are called in 
the Bible, ayyeV.oi, tov Stafiokov, or tov 'Xatavd, 
Matt. xxv. 41, Rev. xii. 9. The phrase, bad or 
unclean spirits (not angels,) occurs frequently in 
the New Testament, especially in the writings 
of Luke. Paul, too, uses the phrase Tivsv/xatixa 
trfi rtovrjplas, Eph. vi. 12. Whenever the term 
ot ayys^ot occurs in the New Testament without 
qualification, good spirits or holy angels are al- 
ways intended ; as Matt. iv. 11, where it is op- 
posed to 8idfio%o<;. We proceed now to consider 
these two classes more particularly. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANGELS. 

SECTION LX. 

OF THE PRESENT STATE AND EMPLOYMENT OF 
HOLY ANGELS. 

I. Their Present State. 
1. Angels are properly regarded, according 
to the general remarks, s. 59, IV. 2, as beings 
possessing great intellectual excellence — intelli- 
s2 



210 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



gence, knowledge, and experience. Hence, 
whatever is great and excellent is in the Bible 
compared with them; great wisdom is called 
the wisdom of angels; excellent food, the food 
of angels; beautiful appearance, the appearance 
of angels. Their advice is accordingly said to 
be asked for by God ; they are summoned into 
council before him, and compose, as it were, 
his senate or divan. Cf. Job, i. and ii. This 
does not imply that God needed their council ; 
but rather, that he wished to instruct and em- 
ploy them. 

We should beware, however, of exaggerated 
conceptions of their knowledge, and should 
never ascribe to them anything like divine in- 
telligence and wisdom. We should not sup- 
pose, for example, that they are acquainted with 
the thoughts of men, or that they have a know- 
ledge which borders on omniscience. The 
Bible, while it describes their great superiority 
over us, still represents their knowledge as very 
limited and defective in comparison with the 
knowledge of God, and as capable of great in- 
crease. In Job, iv. 18, God is said to charge 
his angels with folly. In Mark, xiii. 32, the 
angels of God are said not to know the hour of 
the destruction of Jerusalem. 1 Pet. i. 12, ii$ 
a eTtL'&vfiovaiv ayytyoi 7t<xpaxv>\ai. 

2. They are also described as possessing 
great moral perfection, which is called their holi- 
ness. Thus they are sometimes called ayioi, in 
opposition to axcfeaptov also ix"Ksx-toL, Deo pro- 
bata, elect, 1 Tim. v. 21. Hence they take their 
greatest pleasure in witnessing and promoting 
integrity and virtue. In Luke, xv. 10, they are 
said to rejoice over the repentance of sinners. 
It is in general true, that the more advanced in 
holiness one is himself, the more pleasure he 
takes in that of others, the more interested is he 
in the diffusion of morality and piety, and the 
more distressed at the prevalence of vice. And 
if this is the case with man, how much more 
with spirits of a higher order! We see here, 
why the plan of redemption engages the interest 
of the whole spiritual world, and fills angels 
with delight and wonder when they contemplate 
it, as is represented in the New Testament; 
1 Pet. i. xii. ; Eph. iii. 10. The angels are de- 
scribed as very actively engaged before and at 
the birth of Christ, Luke, i. They sung praises 
to God on this occasion, and announced his ad- 
vent to men, Luke, ii. With equal activity and 
interest they attended him during his life, mi- 
nistered to his wants, witnessed his passion and 
resurrection, and were interested in whatever 
concerned him. The union of so many natural 
and moral excellences in the angels is the rea- 
son why great wisdom is also ascribed to them. 

3. From what has now been said, we may 
determine what, 'in a general view, is their con- 
dition. It is always described as one of the 



greatest happiness; for of this, their holiness, 
which is the essential condition of happiness in 
moral beings, renders them eminently suscepti- 
ble. Vide s. 51, II. They are said in the 
Bible to stand in the most intimate connexion 
with God, and to behold his countenance conti- 
nually. Matt, xviii. 10. When the sacred 
writers would describe the blessedness of which 
we shall hereafter be partakers, they do it by 
saying, that we shall then be like the angels of 
God ; tffayy£?vot., Luke, xx. 36. It is sometimes 
said, that the angels are now so confirmed in 
goodness that they cannot sin. We cannot sup- 
pose, however, that there is any absolute impos- 
sibility of their sinning; for this would be in- 
consistent with their freedom. It is true, in- 
deed, that they never will intentionally and 
deliberately commit sin, or wish to do so. Still 
to sin must be possible to them, and to all finite 
beings, in short, to all but God himself. 

Note. — The schoolmen, like the Rabbins be- 
fore them, proposed many questions on this 
subject which were wholly unanswerable; and 
many, too, which were extremely frivolous, 
which may also be justly said of the answers 
which they gave. Vide Morus, p. 88, n. 5. 
Among these questions were the following: — 
Whether an angel could be in more than one 
place at the same time? Whether more than 
one angel could be in the same place at the same 
time? Whether they spake the Hebrew lan- 
guage, or what language was meant by the 
y7vti<y<jac dy<yf?aor, spoken of 1 Cor. xiii. 1 1 

II. The Employments of Holy Angels. 

They are represented in the Bible as the ser- 
vants of Divine Providence, and as chiefly em- 
ployed in promoting the good of men. The 
text, Heb. i. 14, teaches explicitly that they are 
all spirits, engaged in the service of God, and 
employed by him for the good of those whom 
he will save. In Matt. xxvi. 53, we read that 
God could have sent more than twelve legions 
of angels to the service of Christ. Cf. Matt, 
xviii. 10; and also Psa. xxxiv. 7, and xci. 11, 
where it is said that they encamp about the 
righteous, and bear them up in their hands, both 
of which are proverbial phrases. These are the 
general representations contained in the Bible 
respecting the employments of angels; and be- 
yond these the teacher of religion should not at- 
tempt to go in the instructions which he gives. 
There are two cautions which it may be well for 
him to suggest in connexion with this subject. 

(a) W T e are unable, in any particular cases 
of providential protection or deliverance which 
may occur at the present time, to determine 
whether the ministration of angels has been em- 
ployed, or how far their intervention has extend- 
ed. It is sufficient for us to know that we are 
watched over and provided for by the providence 



WORKS OF GOD. 



211 



of God, and that his angels are employed in 
our behalf; and it is of no importance to us to 
be informed of the particular cases in which 
their agency is exerted. If we may believe that 
God is not confined to the established course of 
nature, that he may sometimes turn aside and 
afford us special and extraordinary assistance, 
protection, deliverance, and instruction, through 
the instrumentality of his angels, as we are 
clearly taught to believe in the Bible, this surely 
must be sufficient to comfort and encourage us 
during the dangers and difficulties of life, even 
if may not know when and how these services 
are performed. 

(b) We are not to conclude that because ex- 
traordinary appearances and interpositions of 
angels are recorded in the holy scriptures as 
having taken place in former times, similar oc- 
currences are to be expected at the present day. 
The events described in such passages as Matt. 
i. 24; ii. 13; Luke, i. 11, 26; ii. 9; xxii. 43; 
Acts, xxvii. 23; should be exhibited by the re- 
ligious teacher, as real occurrences, indeed, but 
as peculiar to that day. This is far better than 
to attempt to explain away the obvious meaning 
of these passages, as has often been done, to the 
great injury of the interests of truth. 

Moreover, the Bible does not teach that an- 
gels are present with men at all times and under 
all circumstances, and that they are conversant 
uninterruptedly with our affairs. On the con- 
trary, they are generally represented as present 
and active only in extraordinary cases, in unex- 
pected events, the occurrence of which cannot 
easily be explained without supposing their 
agency. Vide Isaiah, xxxvii. 36; Acts, xii. 7. 
Cf. s. 58, and Morus, p. 89. Hence we find them 
employed at the giving of the law, the last judg- 
ment, and other great events of this nature, as 
even the Jews supposed. Vide Matt. xiii. 39, 
41 ; xvi. 27; xxv. 31 ; 2 Thess. i. 7. They are 
frequently exhibited, especially in the prophetic 
writings, in a symbolical and parabolical man- 
ner ; and much which is there said concerning 
them must be understood as merely figurative 
representations — e. g., Isa. vi. 1, seq. ; Dan. x. 
13 ; Zac. iii. 1 ; Luke, xvi. 22. But at the 
ground of all these figurative and parabolical 
representations lies the truth, that angels are 
actively employed for the good of men. The 
source of the imagery contained in these pas- 
sages has already been pointed out in s. 58. 
We cannot, however, leave this subject without 
considering more fully the opinions which have 
been entertained respecting two particular of- 
fices or works ascribed to angels. 

1. One of these offices is that of guardian 
angels. The general notion of them is, that they 
are appointed to superintend particular countries 
and provinces of the earth, and also to watch 
over individual men, and administer their con- 



cerns. We find no clear evidence that this doc- 
trine was held by the Jews before the Babylo- 
nian exile ; and many suppose that they adopted 
it for the first time in Chaldea. The origin of 
this opinion at that time is accounted for on the 
supposition that angels were compared with the 
viceroys who ruled over the provinces of the 
vast oriental kingdoms. We find, indeed, the 
doctrine that angels were guardian spirits, in a 
genera] sense, developed in the earlier books of 
the Old Testament; but not so clearly the opi- 
nion that each particular man and country had 
an angel as an appropriate and permanent guar- 
dian. The guardian spirit {yhn "n^n) men- 
tioned Job, xxxiii. 23, as promoting the virtue 
of man, and interceding for him when he lies 
desperately sick, does not seem to be one among 
many of the same kind, but altogether extraor- 
dinary. He is supposed by some to be a man. 
Vide Dathe and Schultens, in loc. Those, 
however, who are spoken of in Dan. x. 13, 20, 
are unquestionably guardian angels over parti- 
cular countries and people. Daniel, in a vision, 
beholds Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews, 
contending with the guardian angel of the Per- 
sian empire. In whatever way this passage 
may be interpreted, it discloses the idea that 
angels were intrusted with the charge of parti- 
cular countries and people. This idea was so 
familiar to the Seventy, and so important in their 
view, that they introduced it surreptitiously even 
into their version of the Pentateuch, and thus 
contributed to its wider diffusion — e. g., they 
rendered the passage, Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, xa-ra 
dpt^jtiov ayyihuv ®sov. And mn^?N-\J3, Tloi ©fov, 
Gen. vi. 2, is rendered by Philo and Josephus 
ayys'Kot, Qeoi. Cf. Gen. xi. 1, S, 5,9. They 
supposed that evil spirits reigned over heathen 
countries — an opinion respecting which we shall 
say more hereafter. The Rabbins held, that 
there are seventy people and as many languages, 
over which seventy angels preside. Vide the 
paraphrase of Jonathan on Gen. xi. and Deut. 
xxxii. This idea was the source of many other 
representations. Every star, element, plant, 
and especially every man, was now supposed to 
have an appropriate angel for a guardian. 

We find some traces of the latter opinion — 
viz., that every man had his own guardian an- 
gel, even in the New Testament. In Acts, xii. 
15, when they could not believe that it was 
Peter himself who appeared, they said, 6 aiyy&os 
avtov iativ. But Luke merely narrates the 
words of another, without assenting to the opi- 
nion expressed. Vide Wetstein, in loc. Some 
suppose that in Matt, xviii. 10, Christ himself 
utters and sanctions the opinion in question : 
"Their (jitxpuv) angels behold the face of my 
Father." But neither does this passage author- 
ize the opinion that each particular man has his 
appropriate guardian angel. Their angels may 



212 



CHRISTIAN THEOjlOGY. 



mean, those who guard and preserve them when- 
ever and wherever occasion might require; ac- 
cording to Heb. i. 14; John, i. 51. It does not 
necessarily imply that there is a particular angel 
appointed to guard each individual man and to be 
his constant attendant. The word jxixpoi, which 
primarily signifies children, means also those who 
have the disposition of children, and are therefore 
liable to be despised and abused. Vide ver. 14 
and Matt. xi. 11. The meaning of the whole 
passage may be thus expressed : — As we are 
very careful not to offend the favourites of those 
who stand high in favour with earthly kings, 
we should be still more careful not to offend the 
favourites of Divine Providence — the humble 
pious — who are intrusted to the special care of 
those who stand high in the favour of God, (who 
behold his face.) 

The Jews believed, moreover, that angels ad- 
ministered the affairs of men before God, brought 
their supplications and complaints to him, &c. 
Many of these opinions afterwards prevailed in 
the Christian church, and are found in the writ- 
ings of the earlier Christian teachers. Much is 
said respecting the care of angels over particular 
kingdoms of the earth by Clement of Alexandria, 
(Strom, b. 7,) Origen, (Contra Cels. b. 4 and 
8 ; also b. 5, 10, 26, 30, 31 ; Homilia 1 1 in Nu- 
meros; and in Gen. homil. 9,) and Eusebius, 
(Demonstr. Evang. iv. 7, seq.) The latter 
speaks of the care of angels over seas, fruits, &c. 
The angel of fire is spoken of, in conformity 
with the opinions of the Jews, in Rev. xiv. 18; 
the angel of water, Rev. xvi. 5; John, v. 4. 
Similar passages respecting the guardian angels 
of particular countries and people occur in the 
writings of the Platonists, Jamblicus, Julian, 
and others. Vide the work of Ode, before cited, 
s. 779, ff. Much is said respecting the guardian 
angels of particular men, by Hermas, Pastor, b. 
ii., and Origen, who says, among other things, 
(Adv. Celsum, i. 8,) that the angels bring the 
prayers of men to God, according to the opinion 
of the Jews. So say Eusebius, Basilius, Hiero- 
nymus, Augustine, Chrysostom, and most of 
the schoolmen; and among protestant theolo- 
gians, Baier, Er. Schmidt, Gerhard, and others. 
This idea of guardian spirits was likewise 
widely diffused among the ancient Greeks and 
Romans. It is found in the writings of Hesiod, 
though not in Homer. It was received, and 
philosophically discussed by Socrates, and by 
Plato in various of his works. Plotinus, Por- 
phyry, Jamblicus, and Proclus, taught it in the 
manner peculiar to the new Platonists. It was 
likewise taught in a similar manner at Alexan- 
dria and the other schools of Christian philoso- 
phy, where the maxims of the new Platonists 
were adopted. Thus this opinion was rapidly 
and widely diffused. 

2. The assistance of angels at the giving of 



the law. They are said to have been present 
on this solemn occasion, and to have been em- 
ployed as the instruments through whom the 
law was given. Moses says nothing which 
either proves or disproves this opinion. But 
we find, in Ps. lxviii. 17, that Jehovah was on 
Sinai with thousands of angels. We find also 
in the Septuagint version of Deut. xxxiii. 2, 
that God appeared at the giving of the law avv 
fivpcoKM — tx 6f|twv avtov ayy£%oo fist' avtov. 
This opinion was universally received both 
among Jews and Christians at the time of the 
apostles, and sometimes occurs in the New 
Testament. Heb. ii. 2, 6c' ayyit^v haXr^eis 
Xoyoj, (i. e., vo/xos.) Acts, vii. 53 ; Gal. iii. 19, 
diatayzis St' dyyi^cov. Now, because God em- 
ployed angels as his servants at the giving of 
the law, and published it through them, and, as 
the Jews supposed, governed the world, and 
especially the Jewish church, by them, Paul 
says, Heb. ii. 5, that the former world was sub- 
ject to angels, but the times of the New Testa- 
ment to Christ alone. The same opinion re- 
specting the giving of the law by angels is 
found in Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. The Israel- 
ites, he says, received the law 5t' dyyl^wr Ttaaa 
®£ov. It is also found in the writings of the 
later Rabbins. Vide Wetstein on Gal. iii. 19. 
Cf. s. 58. 

Note. — The manner in which this whole sub- 
ject should be treated in practical discourse is 
well exhibited by Morus, p. 87, s. 3. The 
great principle which should be first of all in- 
culcated is, that Divine Providence aids those de- 
pendent on its care in various ways, and fre- 
quently in a way wholly unknown and inexpli- 
cable to us. This should be shewn by examples. 
Among other means, angels are employed, as 
we are taught in the Bible, for the good and 
safety of man. And since this is so, it is alike 
our duty and privilege to live quietly and peace- 
fully, with trust in that Providence which em- 
ploys so many means, both of an ordinary and 
extraordinary nature, for the good of those who 
comply with the conditions prescribed in the 
gospel. We need not be distressed even in 
view of death ; but may go with a cheerful heart 
from this wo*ld into the next, knowing that we 
are attended by the angels of God, and shall be 
borne by them into the bosom of Abraham. 
Vide Luke, xvi. 22. 

SECTION LXI. 

OF THE CLASSES OF GOOD ANGELS ; THEIR NAMES; 
AND THE WORSHIP RENDERED THEIM. 

I. Classes of Good Angels. 

Angels are described as existing in a society 
composed of members of unequal dignity, 
power, and excellence; as having chiefs and 



WORKS OF GOD. 



213 



rulers, and, in short, as exhibiting all those dif- 
ferences of rank and order which appear in 
human society, and among the courtiers and 
ministers of earthly kings. It is hardly conceiv- 
able that a great society should exist without 
higher orders, and those of a lower and sub- 
ordinate grade. Hence the Biblical represen- 
tations that angels are divided into various 
classes (ordines) , over which chiefs are placed, 
and to which appropriate employments are as- 
signed. 

The conception is not clearly expressed in 
the books written before the Babylonian capti- 
vity, (vide s. 58;) but it is developed in the 
books written during the exile and afterwards, 
especially in the writings of Daniel and Zecha- 
riah. In Zech. i. 11, an angel of the higher 
order, one who stands before God, appears in 
contrast with angels of an inferior class, whom 
he employs as his messengers and agents. Cf. 
iii. 7. In Dan. x. 13, the appellations jifefenn -\fr, 
and in xii. 1, bvun ife>, are given to Michael. 
The Grecian Jews rendered this appellation by 
the term dp^ayys^oj, which occurs in the New 
Testament, Jude, ver. 9, and 1 Thess. iv. 16, 
where we are taught that Christ will appear to 
judge the world iv $coviy dp^ayy&cn;. This term 
denotes, as the very analogy of language teaches, 
a chief of the angels, one superior to the other 
angels ; like dp^t£p£vj, dp^WT'paT'^yos, dp^wu- 
raycoyoj. The opinion, therefore, that there are 
various orders of angels was not peculiar to the 
Jews; but was held by Christians at the time 
of the apostles, and sanctioned by the apostles 
themselves. 

These distinct divisions in which angels are 
arranged according to their rank in the writings 
of the Jews of later times, were, however, either 
almost or wholly unknown to the Jews contem- 
porary with the apostles ; in proof of which it 
may be mentioned, among other things, that 
Philo, who has much to say respecting angels, 
takes no notice of any such divisions. The ap- 
pellations, dp£cu, sioDtfuw, $v7>dfi£t$, ^tpovov, xv- 
piotrj'tes, are indeed applied in Ephes. i. 21, Col. 
i. 16, and other parallel texts, as they often are 
in the writings of the Jews to the angels ; but 
not to them exclusively, and with the intention 
of denoting their particular classes : but to them 
in common with all beings possessed of might 
and power, those visible as well as invisible, on 
earth as well as in heaven. The same is true 
of 1 Peter, iii. 22. A general division of angels 
into chiefs and subjects is indicated in Rev. xii. 
7, 6 M^aijx xai ol dyyj^ot avTfov, those that be- 
longed to his train, and were subject to him. But 
these general classes were greatly subdivided by 
the later Jews. The fathers, too, under the in- 
fluence of their Platonic ideas, went far beyond 
the instructions of the Bible in classifying the 
angels. An example of this may be seen in the 



work, Be Hierarchia Cceksti, which appeared 
about the fifth century, and was falsely ascribed 
to Dionysius Areopagita — a work full of the 
most extravagant fictions and conceits. This 
work was in high repute with Peter of Lom- 
bardy, Thomas Aquinas, and other schoolmen, 
who adopted its division of the angels into nine 
classes. 

The Cherubim (a^ro) and Seraphim^a-Hr) 
mentioned in the Old Testament have been con- 
sidered by some as forming classes of angels. 
Vide Morus, p. 87, s. 4. But (a) Cherubim are 
not, properly speaking, angels, but originally 
hieroglyphical figures in the form of beasts ; like 
the sphynx of the Egyptians, the bird-griffin, 
&c. They are represented as bearing God when 
he rides over the heavens, in order to shoot his 
lightnings, and hence are always mentioned 
when tempests are described, Psalm xcix. 1 ; 
Genesis, iii. 24. They thus came to be used as 
symbols of the divine majesty and power, and 
as such were placed over the ark of the cove- 
nant, as pillars of the throne, and engraven on 
the walls of the temple. They were variously 
composed of forms of men and beasts, (fwa 
7to%v/Aop$a.) Vide Ezek. i. 5, seq. ; Michaelis, 
De Cherubis, equis tonantibus Hebraeorum, 
Commentar. Soc. Scient. Gottingae, t. i. p. 157, 
seq. The four beasts (rlacrapa £wa) in the Apo- 
calypse (which in their form resemble the Che- 
rubim) are represented indeed as endowed with 
speech and reason, and as serving before the 
throne of God ; and yet as distinct from the an- 
gels. Vide Rev. iv. 6, seq.; v. 8 — 14; vi. 1, 
seq. ; vii., xiv., xix. (b) The Seraphim appear 
only in the prophetic vision, (Isaiah, vi. 2, 6,) 
and there, judging from the analogy of other 
passages, would seem indeed to be angels who 
surround the throne of God ; not, however, a 
particular class or order of angels ; but in gene- 
ral, the nobles and princes of heaven ; the name 
being derived from the Arabic u-5Jw 3 to be 
noble, excellent. Cf. Job. i. and ii. 

II. Names of Good Angels. 

Wherever there are many of the same kind it 
becomes necessary to make use of appropriate 
names to distinguish one individual from an- 
other; and so it was with regard to the angels. 
Particular names are given to some of them in 
the Bible, by which we are able to distinguish 
between them, and by which also, as some Jews 
and Christians have supposed, they are actually 
denominated in heaven. We find no names 
given to particular angels in the books of the 
Old Testament written before the Babylonian 
exile; they occur for the first time in the hooks 
written during the captivity and afterwards ; in 
Daniel, and the Jewish and Christian apocryphal 
writings. These names are, Michael, Gabriel, 



214 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Raphael, Uriel, Jeremiel, Sealthiel, &c« The first 
two only, Michael and Gabriel, are found in our 
canonical books. Vide Dan. viii. — xii. ; Luke, 
i. 19, 26 ; Jude, ver. 9 ; Rev. xii. 7. 

III. Worship of Good Angels 

It is well known to be a doctrine which still 
belongs to the creed of the Roman, and, to some 
extent, of the Grecian church, that angels, and 
indeed the souls of the pious dead, should be 
worshipped and invoked. The teachers of these 
churches, however, always protest decidedly 
against paying divine worship to angels, and 
contend that a merely civil homage should be 
rendered them, and that they should be suppli- 
cated to intercede for us with God. This, in 
itself considered, is not sinful, as has been some- 
times unjustly asserted. It is not improper for 
me to request even a pious man now living to 
intercede with God for me, any more than it is 
improper for one to request a favourite at court 
to intercede for him with the king. The prac- 
tice of invoking the aid and intercession of an- 
gels proceeds on the supposition that they are 
intimately acquainted with the affairs of men, 
and hear the prayers offered up to them. But 
this supposition is unfounded; for angels are 
neither omniscient nor omnipresent. Vide s. 
60, II. To invoke their aid, thererore, before 
we know that they will hear our prayer, is as 
absurd as it would be for a subject at a great 
distance from court, and in the retirement of his 
own house, to supplicate the aid and assistance 
of the prince or minister, believing that his re- 
quest would be regarded. Hence it must appear 
that supplication to angels and saints is not so 
sinful as it is irrational. To these considera- 
tions we may add the following: — 

1. The Bible furnishes us with no example 
of the invocation of an absent angel. On the 
contrary, even a present angel is represented in 
Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9, as seriously displeased 
with John, who fell down before him, because 
he was his brother, and, like him, employed in 
the service of God, (tvvSovXos.) Again; Paul 
teaches (Heb. ii. 5) that the Christian dispen- 
sation is not placed under the control of angels. 
We are instructed by the example of Jesus and 
the apostles to address our prayers directly to 
God and to Christ, and that we do not need the 
intercession and mediation of other beings. Re- 
specting the passage, Job, xxxiii. 23, seq., vide 
s. 60, II. 

2. The propriety of this practice must like- 
wise be rendered very suspicious by the fact, 
which experience has abundantly established, 
that wherever the invocation of saints and angels 
is allowed, the great mass of mankind, notwith- 
standing all the protestations of their teachers, 
do actually render them, not merely civil ho- 
mage, but divine worship, and regard them very 



much as the heathen do their gods. This has 
been seen ever since the worship of saints and 
images was introduced in the fifth and sixth 
centuries. 

The following remarks will shew how the 
worship of angels came to be authorized and 
established in the church. It was an ancient 
Jewish opinion that angels were intermediate 
persons between God and men, that they con- 
ducted our affairs with God, and carried our de- 
sires and prayers before him. This opinion is 
found in the apocryphal writings, Tob. xii. 
12 — 15; also in the book of Enoch, and is al- 
luded to, Rev. viii. 3, 4. We do not find, how- 
ever, that the Jews at the time of Christ and the 
apostles ever worshipped the angels or invoked 
their aid. Some indeed thought (and so Peirce 
and Michaelis) that they found an allusion to 
the worship of angels in Col. ii. 18, 19, where 
Paul warns his readers against the ta7icivo$po- 
rsivrj, and the£rp>?<mta 6.yyi%u>v of some seditious 
persons of Jewish feelings. Buttarteivofypoavvy] 
and ^p^axiia cvyytTMv here signify humility and 
worship, like that of angels, to which these per- 
sons pretended ; like co$la eLyyixwv. Vide s. 
59, iv. 2, ad finem. It is synonymous with 
s^%o^rpyjox£ Ja, ver. 23. What the Jews believed 
with regard to their angels, the Grecians, and 
especially the Platonists, believed with regard 
to their demons — viz., that they conducted the 
affairs of men with God, and laid our prayers 
and offerings before him. Hence this idea be- 
came more and more prevalent among the Gre- 
cian Jews and Christian teachers. It occurs in 
the writings of the fathers of the second and 
third centuries — e. g., in Origen, (Contra Cel- 
sum, viii. 36,) who says, in cap. 57 of the same 
work, that angels deserve honour and thanks 
from men. The Valentinians and other Gnos- 
tics are said by the ancients to have gone fur- 
ther, and to have rendered a kind of divine 
worship to the angels. But this was always 
very much disapproved by the catholic fathers, 
until the fifth and sixth centuries; as we see 
from the writings of Clement of Alexandria, 
Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Augustine, and 
Theodoret, and by the acts of the Council at 
Laodicea, about the year 360, Can. 35. But 
when at length the worship of images and saints 
came in vogue in the fifth and sixth centuries, 
we find that not only the great mass of the peo- 
ple rendered religious homage to saints and an- 
gels as to deities, but that even many Christian 
teachers expressed themselves in such an incau- 
tious manner as to justify this practice. Not a 
single respectable theologian, however, has ever 
directly defended it, nor is it now defended in 
the Romish church. The Trent Catechism con- 
tains the doctrine, Angelas pro Us provinciis pre* 
ces f under e quibus prsesunt ; and the Romish 
church teaches, that it is proper to pray to angels 



WORKS OF GOD. 



215 



for holiness, and to seek their intercession in 
articulo mortis. Tide Jo. Himmelius, De Na- 
tura Verae ac Religiosae Invocationis, Contra 
Barthold.; Nihusium, 1624. Protestant theo- 
logians — e. g., Brochmand and Baumgarten — 
have allowed that angels may give good coun- 
sel, awaken pious thoughts, and produce plea- 
surable emotions. 



CHAPTER II. 

OF THE FALLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS. 

SECTION LXII. 

OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS; AND THEIR 
APOSTASY. 

In addition to the works of Ode, Cotta, and 
others, mentioned s. 58, note, the student should 
consult the following, in reference to the history 
of this doctrine. J. G. Mayer, Historia Diaboli, 
&c, Ed. 2 ; Tubingse, 1780, 8vo — a work in 
which the existence, condition, power, agency, 
&c, of evil spirits are considered, and in which 
the common doctrine is defended ; and, on the 
other side, the work " Yersuch einer biblischen 
Damonologie, oder Untersuchnng der Lehre 
vom Teufel und seiner Macht," with a preface 
and appendix by Semler; Halle, 1776, 8vo; in 
which the agency of the devil is denied. Cf. 
the work of Ewald, above cited. Other works 
relating to some particular points in this doc- 
trine will be noticed, s. 65. [A complete view 
of the literature of this doctrine is contained in 
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 67.] 

I. The Existence of Evil Spirits. 

It is undoubtedly true, as has been often con- 
tended, that the more savage and ignorant men 
are, the more slavish is their fear of such invi- 
sible beings, whether gods, angels, or of some 
other name, as are supposed to be evil and ma- 
lignant ; and also that the belief in the existence 
and influence of such beings commonly de- 
creases as science and civilization advance. 
Some of the ancient nations believed in only 
one evil spirit, while others conceived of many 
such, under the government of one head. These 
were regarded as the authors of every description 
of evil, natural and moral, and to them were 
attributed all the diseases and calamities with 
which men are visited. The doctrine of the 
Jews respecting evil spirits, which has a general 
resemblance to that of other nations, though in 
many points it is entirely different, was not fully 
developed, as has been already remarked (s. 58, 
II. 3), until the time of the captivity. 

The existence of any such evil spirits as are 



exhibited in the Jewish and Christian scriptures 
has been either doubted or wholly denied by 
some philosophers in every age. The principal 
objections urged by them against the existence 
of evil spirits are the following: — 

1 . The idea of a spirit, by nature wise and in- 
telligent, and yet opposed to God, seems, they 
think, to involve a contradiction. But if this 
objection were valid with regard to angels, it 
must also hold true with regard to men ; and it 
would be impossible to find a man highly intel- 
ligent and sagacious, and yet wicked. [This 
is the principal objection upon which Schleier- 
macher rests his rejection of the common doc- 
trine respecting evil angels. If Satan were ac- 
quainted with God, and knew his power, he 
could not hope to succeed in opposing him ; 
with all the high intelligence ascribed to him 
he must see the folly and ruin of wickedness, and 
repent, otherwise his understanding and his will 
would remain in fixed opposition; whereas the 
functions belonging to any real existence must 
be harmonious. Hence the conclusion is, that 
the idea of Satan, as a being possessed of high 
intelligence and yet opposed to God, contains 
logical contradictions, and cannot therefore be 
received. But if the existence of a depraved 
will be not inconsistent with the highest degree 
of intelligence with which we are acquainted in 
human beings, how can we tell that it may not 
be consistent with a far higher, and indeed the 
very highest, degree of finite intelligence 1 ? Be- 
sides, in a moral apostasy, though the defection 
of the will must precede the error of the under- 
standing, yet the error of the understanding is 
sure to follow; and the higher intelligence 
which angels by nature possess may have be- 
come perverted by their fall, as is the case with 
men. — Tr.] 

2. There is no trace of a belief in the exist- 
ence of evil spirits, even among the Jews, until 
the time of the Babylonian captivity. [But if, 
as has been shewn in a previous section, there 
was no necessity for the revelation of this doc- 
trine before that time, and then it became neces- 
sary, the fact of its being previously unknown 
cannot, surely, be an argument against its truth 
when revealed. It is enough that it was at any 
time taught by inspired prophets. — Tr.] 

[3. Connected with the foregoing objection, 
and perhaps implied in it, is another, which 
needs to be more fully stated. It is said, that 
the Biblical doctrine of a Satan is derived from 
the system of dualism so prevalent in the East, 
and is liable to the objections to which that sys- 
tem is exposed. This objection is urged by 
Henke, Eckermann, and others of the same 
school. But in answer to this it may be said, 
that even supposing the Biblical doctrine re- 
specting Satan to agree with oriental dualism, 
it does not follow that the former is untrue. 



216 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



If it is taught by inspired writers, it certainly 
does not become less true by having been taught 
by Zoroaster, and believed by the Persians, any 
more than the doctrines of God and divine pro- 
vidence are to be discarded because universally 
believed. But there are, it must be remembered, 
very obvious differences between the demonolo- 
gy of the sacred writers and of the Eastern phi- 
losophers. According to the latter, the two 
principles of good and evil are co-eternal and in 
every respect equal ; and it is from this repre- 
sentation that all the evils connected with ori- 
ental dualism result; and it is in this very point 
that it differs from the Biblical doctrine. Ac- 
cording to this, Satan himself, and all his le- 
gions, are creatures of God, dependent upon 
him, and trembling before him. Thus, although 
possessed of vast power, they are still under the 
entire control of the Ruler of the universe ; and 
so our trust in him remains unshaken. — Tr.] 

4. Belief in evil spirits is confined, it is said, 
to rude and uncultivated men, and disappears 
as science and civilization advance, and ought 
therefore, in these enlightened times, to be 
wholly discarded. But it should be remembered 
that learned men in enlightened periods some- 
times fall into errors, as well as ignorant men 
in barbarous ages, and that an opinion is not 
true merely because believed by the one, nor 
false because believed by the other. 

Those who deny the existence of evil spirits 
are called JLdemonists. Many of these, who are 
hardly prepared flatly to oppose the authority 
of the inspired writers and to set aside their in- 
structions, undertake the useless labour of ex- 
plaining away the doctrine of the devil from the 
Bible, and in doing this resort to the most forced 
and unauthorized modes of interpretation. Vide 
Morus, p. 93, s. 13. 

[The modes of interpretation here alluded to 
were practised long since by the Rationalists 
of the seventeenth century — the Cartesians, Spi- 
noza, and his friends. A good specimen of the 
manner in which these fathers of modern Ra- 
tionalism disposed of the instructions of the Bi- 
ble upon the subject of evil spirits is given by 
Stosch, in his " Concordia rationis et fidei," p. 
8, s. 17: " Quee de angelis et deemonibus tam 
in s. scriptura quam historia humana traduntur, 
sunt partim somnia, partim visiones et appari- 
tiones, partim phantasmata, partim morbi, par- 
tim figmenta et illusiones." But the most plau- 
sible of all the systems of Ademonism is that 
by which Satan is made to denote, not a real 
existence, but some mode of moral evil. This 
system is well expressed by Ammon when he 
says, " Acquiescamus non tam in existcntia et 
facfis, quam notione Satanae," Sum. Theol. 
Christ, p. 105. The particular form of moral 
evil denoted by the word Satan is very various 
according to different authors, each of whom 



modifies it to suit his own philosophical system. 
Thus, according to one, it is that disposition 
which pursues evil for its own sake, and not for 
any advantages with which it may be connect- 
ed — pertinacia in damnum proprium vel alienum 
agendi, absque illecebris carnis, vel mundi, sive 
glorise vanse. In the school of Kant, Satan is 
the idea of what is absolutely displeasing in the 
sight of God, and so is the direct opposite of the 
Son of God, who, according to Kant, is the idea 
of what is absolutely well-pleasing with God. 
Thus in each different system does Satan, at the 
option of the framer, assume a different form, 
and act a different part. — Tr.] 

Our modern theologians have often chosen a 
middle course, and endeavoured to unite the 
opinions of those who totally deny the existence 
of demons, and of those who contend strongly 
for their existence and agency ; but, as is usual 
with those who endeavour to please opposite 
parties, they have given satisfaction to neither. 
In order to prevent the appearance of rejecting 
the authority of the holy scriptures, they admit 
the existence of evil spirits, while, in order to 
avoid the difficulties to which the common doc- 
trine is liable, and to conform to the prevailing 
notions of the day, they deny that the devil can 
exert any power on men, at least at the present 
time, (a very necessary limitation for them to 
make ;) that to us, therefore, it is all the same 
as if he did not exist ; and that when Christ and 
the apostles spoke of the agency of the devil, 
they merely accommodated themselves to the 
popular superstitions of the Jews, while they 
themselves neither believed in demoniacal in- 
fluence, nor even, as some will go so far as to 
say, in the existence of a devil. (Of this num- 
ber, the most distinguished perhaps is Wegschei- 
der, who thus gives his views in his " Institu- 
tiones," s. 106: "Verisimile est magistrum 
ilium divinum rectius quidem de demonologia 
Judaeorum cogitantem, at formulis quibusdam 
usum symbolicis, regnum divinum regno dia- 
bolico oppositum adumbrantibus, quae apud Ju- 
dseos tunc temporis pervulgata? erant, a disci- 
pulis suis non satis intellectual fuisse, et ipsam 
providentiam divinam posteritati doctrinam 
istam emendendam tradi voluisse." Cf. De 
Wette, Bib. Dogm. s. 241.— Tr.] 

But these views are liable to very weighty 
objections ; for, 

(a) Since it was a great object with Jesus 
to free mankind from hurtful prejudices, and 
especially, during his earthly ministry, to era- 
dicate the errors which prevailed among the 
Jews, we may be very certain that he would not 
have spared their belief in the existence and 
agency of the devil, if he had regarded it as false 
It is said, indeed, that it was necessary for him 
to indulge those prejudices ol the Jews which 
he could not at once eradicate, and that when 



WORKS OF GOD. 



217 



he spoke of the influences of Satan it was merely 
in condescension to those deep-rooted Jewish 
prejudices. But an examination of his words, 
in the connexion in which they stand, will con- 
vince us that this was not the case. Christ 
does not merely forbear to contradict this prevail- 
ing doctrine, or merely allude to it incidentally, 
but he frequently brings it directly forward, and 
expressly teaches the existence of the devil and 
his agency upon men. Thus, for example, in 
John, viii. 38, 44, he speaks of the devil, with- 
out having the least inducement on the part of 
his hearers for so doing, and this in the very 
same discourse in which he demands from them 
implicit faith in everything which he says, on 
nis simple word, and in which he declares his 
utter abhorrence of all falsehood and deception. 
Vide ver. 38 — 47. And he frequently mentions 
this doctrine in his discourses, when he could 
have had no motive for doing so from a desire 
of pleasing his hearers, and siding with their 
prejudices. Vide Matt. xii. 22—31, 43—45; 
xiii. 39. Had not Christ himself believed this 
doctrine he would have introduced it as seldom 
as possible into his discourses, and would have 
thrown out hints here and there, by which the 
more discerning would have discovered that he 
himself entertained different opinions on the 
subject. It could not certainly have been 
through fear of any consequences injurious to 
himself attending the denial of this doctrine, 
that he was induced to indulge and authorize it ; 
since the Sadducees had before renounced it 
without experiencing persecution; and since 
Christ was never known in other cases to give 
way to any false or dangerous opinions, how 
much soever the Pharisees and the Jewish peo- 
ple might have been attached to them. Thus, 
for example, he fearlessly opposed their doctrine 
respecting traditions, though this was far more 
important in their view than the doctrine re- 
specting angels. 

(6) Christ himself informs us, that during 
his life on earth he privately taught his disci- 
ples many things which were not to be pub- 
lished by them till after his ascension, (Matt. 
x. 26, 27 ;) and that much which he could not 
teach them, because they were unable to bear 
it, would be communicated to them by the Pa- 
racletus, John, xvi. 12, 13. But we do not 
find that among these more familiar instruc- 
tions the disciples were taught that there is no 
devil, or that he is not the author of evil, or that 
he is destitute of all power. On the contrary, 
Christ expressly and particularly sanctions a 
belief in evil spirits, in presence of his disci- 
ples, (Matthew, xiii. 39, seq. ; Luke, xxii. 31;) 
and even mentions the fact that the prince of 
this world is judged, (not that there is no Satan,) 
as one of those things of which the Holy Ghost 
would convince the world through their instru- 
28 



mentality. After the ascension of Jesus, the 
apostles made use of the same expressions and 
representations with regard to evil spirits which 
he himself had employed ; as, 1 John, iii. 8 ; 
1 Pet. v. 8 ; and often in the Acts. With what 
freedom and fearlessness does Paul often attack 
the prevailing prejudices and superstitions of 
the Jews and Greeks ! But so far is he from 
either opposing this doctrine, or merely passing 
it by unnoticed, that he expresses his own be- 
lief in all the essentials of the Jewish demon- 
ology ; Ephes. ii. 1, 2, seq.; vi. 11, seq. et 
passim. The apostles, indeed, held this doc- 
trine in a manner somewhat different from that 
in which it was held by the Jews, and discard- 
ed many of their gross and fabulous representa- 
tions ; but yet, as it must appear from what has 
been said, they themselves really believed it. 
Our modern philosophers are at liberty to follow 
their own convictions upon this subject, and to 
reason upon their own principles; but they are 
not at liberty to ascribe their hypothesis to 
Christ and the apostles, nor to impose upon the 
common people this boasted wisdom, which 
they will never relish, and by which they will 
be rather confounded than enlightened. 

Our belief of this doctrine must rest ulti- 
mately on our conviction of the divine mission 
of Christ in its most full and proper sense. If 
we receive him as a divinely-commissioned 
teacher, we must abide by his decision on this 
subject as well as on all others, whatever diffi- 
culty we may find in the way. Otherwise, we are 
driven to the alternative of saying either that 
Christ did himself believe and teach the exist- 
ence of evil spirits, though they do not exist, — 
in which case he is not an infallible teacher, — 
or, that Christ did not himself believe, but yet 
taught the existence of evil spirits, in which 
case his moral character is impeached. The 
same is true in regard to the apostles. 

[Note 1. — In confirmation of the remark of 
the author, that our belief of this doctrine must 
depend ultimately on the testimony of Christ, it 
may be said that the attempts which have been 
made to prove the existence of evil spirits by 
arguments a priori, have proved as unsuccess- 
ful as the attempts to disprove it by arguments 
of the same nature. The most noted attempt of 
this kind is, perhaps, that made by Heinroth, in 
the last chapter of his late work, "Ueber die 
Wahrheit." He there endeavours to demon- 
strate the existence of evil spirits from the apos- 
tasy of man, which he thinks can be accounted 
for only on the supposition that he was tempted 
by a being who had previously fallen. Man 
was made pure and holy, and could therefore 
find no inducement to disobedience from anv- 
thing in his own nature. The inducement to 
sin must therefore have come to him from with- 
out; and as hs acts only in view of seeming 
T 



S18 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



good, he must have been made to believe that 
transgression would conduce to his advantage; 
in short, he must have been deceived. But he 
could not have been deceived by God, nor any- 
thing in the world in which he was placed, 
which is a work and revelation of God; and if 
deceived at all, therefore, it must have been by 
an older apostate, a spirit of evil, a father of lies ; 
and only on the admission of such a spirit can 
the incontrovertible fact of the fall of our race 
be in any way accounted for. But, in the first 
place, this temptation does by no means account 
for that moral act in which the essence of the apos- 
tasy consisted. A change in man's moral charac- 
ter must have already taken place, before trans- 
gression could have been made alluring. With- 
out this previous defection of his will from God, 
and the consequent disorder of his powers and 
darkness of his mind, he could have seen no at- 
traction in what was forbidden, and could have 
looked upon the inducements to it, as Christ 
did, only with abhorrence, and certainly never 
would have preferred them to the infinitely 
stronger inducements which the government of 
God holds out to the obedient; and even if, 
without this change, he had yielded to the in- 
fluence of some delusion from without to which 
he had been subjected, he would have been 
chargeable with mistake only, and not have been 
guilty of sin. And, in the second place, the 
agency of a tempter, though employed as a mat- 
ter of fact in the apostasy of man, is not abso- 
lutely necessary to account for it. If the fall 
of Adam cannot be accounted for except by the 
influence of temptation, neither can that of 
Satan ; and the tempter himself must have been 
before tempted and deceived. But if Satan — a 
spiritual existence, and stationed near the 
throne of God — could have apostatized without 
having been drawn away by an older apostate, 
certainly this may be supposed of Adam, in 
whom, both from his nature and his circum- 
stances, apostasy must have been more proba- 
ble. The argument of Heinroth is liable, 
therefore, to the twofold objection, that the 
agency of a tempter does not fully account for 
the apostasy of Adam, and that it is not neces- 
sary to account for it, since the tempter him- 
self fell without any such agency, though pos- 
sessed of a nature and placed in circumstances 
far more favourable to obedience. — Tr.] 

Note 2. — Since demons and their influence 
are mentioned so frequently in the New Testa- 
ment, the doctrine which relates to them ought 
not to be omitted in popular instruction. If it is 
passed by, the common people will fall into 
very erroneous and superstitious notions with 
regard to evil spirits. The truth ought there- 
fore to be exhibited with wise caution, in such 
a way as to obviate both unbelief and supersti- 
tion, to rectify false views, and yet so as to 



leave the authority of the Bible uninfringed, 
and the whole sense of scripture unperverted. 
The following is the simple scriptural view of 
this subject which the religious teacher should 
exhibit: — (a) Christ, by his death and the 
gracious dispensation which he administers, has 
taken away from the devil the power of injur- 
ing his true followers ; those, therefore, who 
are sincerely pious towards God, and believers 
in Christ, and followers of his instructions, have 
nothing to fear, (b) The existence of demons 
and their influence may, however, furnish us 
with motives to piety and virtue, and serve to 
deter us from vice and corruption If we are 
pious, we are citizens of the kingdom of God; 
if wicked, citizens of the kingdom of Satan — re- 
presentations by which the states of moral good- 
ness and badness are figuratively described. 
Vide Morus, p. 90, s. 8, seq. [Cf. Bretschneider, ' 
Handbuch, b. i. s. 723.] 

II. Apostasy of Evil Spirits. 

All the ana-els, according to the Jews and the 
writers of the New Testament, were placed ori- 
ginally in a state of innocence and holiness ; 
some of them afterwards sinned, apostatized from 
God, and were consequently punished. Respect- 
ing the time at which this apostasy took place, 
or in what the sin of the fallen angels consisted, 
we are not clearly informed in the scriptures ; 
hence very different opinions have been enter- 
tained on these subjects. 

1. Some suppose that the first sin of the 
apostate angels was the temptation which they 
offered to the progenitors of the human race. 
This opinion has been advocated in modern 
times by Cocceius, Vitringa, Heilmann, Schmid 
of Wittenberg, and others. The devil is not in- 
deed expressly mentioned in the narrative in 
Gen. iii.; but after the Israelites were made bet- 
ter acquainted with the nature and influence of 
evil spirits (s. 58), they always supposed that 
they were intended in this passage, and that 
death and sin had come into the world by Satan. 
So the Book of Wisdom, ii. 24, and the New 
Testament everywhere. They accordingly re- 
garded the devil as the tempter; but it does not 
appear that they regarded the temptation as his 
first offence, that by which he first rebelled 
against God. On the contrary, they seem to 
presuppose that he was previously wicked. The 
passage, John, viii. 44, cannot therefore be em- 
ployed, as Heilmann has employed it, in support 
of this opinion. The sense of this passage may 
be thus given: — "You resemble the devil in 
your dispositions and conduct, (ix ?ov rtarpbg 
tov 8iaj5o%ov inti ;) he was a murderer from the- 
beginning, (avSpurtoxtovos art' apzySi alluding to 
the murder of Abel by Cain, Gen. iii.; 1 John, 
iii. 12, and other events,) and remained not in 
the truth, (the knowledge and worship of God, 



WORKS OF GOD. 



?19 



oi moral rectitude, or both united ;) the love of 
truth and integrity is not in him ; it is his plea- 
sure to speak and propagate falsehood and error, 
(*o4*uSo$, Rev. xxi. 27; xxii. 15;) for he is 
the author (jia-trtf) and patron of falsehood and 
error, (unbelief, superstition, and immorality, of 
which he is always represented as the founder.)" 
This passage certainly does not teach that this 
was the first instance in which Satan revolted 
from God. 

2. Others place the chief offence of the evil 
spirits in pride, which was shewn, according to 
some, in one way, according to others, in an- 
other. So Athanasius, Hieronymus, Augustine, 
and others, particularly the Latin fathers, who 
were followed by many of the schoolmen, and 
in modern times by Luther, Buddeus, Mosheim, 
Cotta, and others. . They refer to the passage 1 
Tim. iii. 6, (which, however, admits of another 
interpretation,) and also to the proud expressions 
which are ascribed to the seducer of men in the 
holy scriptures, Gen. iii. 5 ; Matt. iv. 9. This 
view is partially correct; but the first sin of the 
fallen angels may be ascertained still more de- 
finitely. 

3. We are led to believe by the writings of 
the apostles that in many particulars they agreed 
with the Jewish teachers of their own day re- 
specting the first transgression of fallen spirits. 
We may accordingly consider the Jewish opi- 
nions, in these particulars, as sanctioned by the 
assent of the apostles. Now the Jews held, 
especially after the Babylonian captivity, that 
God entrusted to angels, as overseers or govern- 
ors, particular provinces of the earth, and also 
the heavenly bodies (cf. s. 60, II.), while their 
more proper home and abode was heaven. The 
Jews further held that some of these angels 
were discontented with their lot, and entered 
into a rebellious concert among themselves. 
They proudly aspired to higher posts than those 
assigned them, revolted from God, and deserted 
heaven; and then, for their punishment, were 
thrust by God into Tartarus, like the giants or 
Titans, who, according to the Grecian mytho- 
logy, were cast as rebels out of heaven. Tarta- 
rus is now their proper abode, as heaven was 
formerly ; and from thence they exert, under the 
the Divine permission, an influence upon the 
world. They seduced our first parents, and 
brought sin and death into the world; they reign 
over heathen nations, whom they led into idol- 
atry; they also rule wicked men — i. e., exert 
a controlling influence over them ; but, together 
with those over whom they have ruled, they 
will be punished in Tartarus after the day of 
judgment. With this account the Jews min- 
gled many fabulous and unscriptural representa- 
tions, which were adopted even by many of the 
Christian fathers ; but the general account above 
given is ver« clearly authorized even in the 



New Testament, especially -in the passages 2 
Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6, 7. The first passage 
teaches, that we cannot expect that God will 
leave transgression unpunished; "for he spared 
not the angels that sinned, but cast them down 
to hell (raprapwoa?), where he keeps them in 
reserve for future punishment, (sis xptW.)" 
Still clearer is the parallel text, Jude, ver. G, 
where we are taught that God keeps enchained 
(v7to ^oyov) in Tartarus, reserved for the judg- 
ment of the great day, the angels rovs fxr t tr t pr- 
oavtas t^v eavtuv ap^v, aXXa a7io7^ri6vtag to 
Ibiov olxrr^Lov. 'Ap#ij does not here signify, 
their original state, but the dominion entrusted 
to them as governors. Tr ( pelv is tueri, conservare, 
to retain, and the latter clause is not a descrip- 
tion of their punishment, but of their crime. 
Thus Jude and Peter, though they by no means 
take part in all the Jewish notions with regard 
to the apostasy of the fallen angels, clearly 
authorize the general doctrine of the Jewish 
teachers, as given above. 

Note. — The question has been asked, how it 
can appear probable, or even possible, that such 
perfect beings as angels are represented to be, 
with all their intelligence and knowledge, could 
have fallen in this manner, and so foolishly have 
rebelled against God, with whom they must have 
been acquainted 1 It might be asked, with equal 
plausibility, how it is possible that men can act 
so frequently as they do against the clearest 
knowledge and strongest convictions of duty] 
We often find men, endued with the greatest ta- 
lents, and possessing the clearest discernment, 
who are yet grossly vicious, and act in a man- 
ner unaccountably foolish and unadvised. Emi- 
nent intellectual endowments are not unfre- 
quently attended by eminent virtues, and then 
are eminently useful; but they are also fre- 
quently accompanied by vices, and then are to the 
last degree hurtful. But were it not that expe- 
rience justifies this remark, it would be easy to 
demonstrate, a priori, that high intelligence and 
moral depravity could not possibly go together. 
Demonstrations a priori on such subjects are 
therefore wholly inadmissible. 

SECTION LXIII. 

OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF EVIL SPI- 
RITS? THEIR PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION; 
THEIR NUMBER, CLASSES, AND NAMES. 

I. Their Nature and Attributes. 

The essential constitution of human nature is 
not altered by the depravity of the heart. Man 
continues to possess the inborn excellences and 
perfections of his nature, however depraved he 
may be as to his moral condition. The case is 
the same with evil spirits, as they are represent- 
ed in the Bible. In common, then, with good 
angels, they are still spiritual beings, and even 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



in their present state possess the excellences 
and perfections which are peculiar to spiritual 
existences — great intellectual powers, internal 
energy and activity. Vide s. 59, II. And if 
good angels are invested with a body, or can 
assume one as occasion requires, the same must 
be supposed with respect to evil spirits. Vide 
ubi supra. But their moral state, their will and 
affections, are described as very depraved and 
evil. They therefore employ their intellectual 
powers in behalf of evil and not of good ; they 
act in opposition to the divine purposes, and are 
the enemies of truth and righteousness, John, 
viii. 44. The aotyla ai/co^s v x<n?£p%o[A£vrj is con- 
trasted with cro<jH<x Sac^ovttoSjyj, James, iii. 15; 
and men are warned of the ^s^oSetat tov §ta,3o- 
%ov, Eph. vi. 11 ; ii. 2. 1 Pet. v. 8. Matt. 
xiii. 39. ' 

II. Their Present and Future State. 

Their condition is described as extremely un- 
happy. Vide Matt. xxv. 41. Even the natu- 
ral consequences of sin — the power and domi- 
nion of the passions, the remembrance of their 
former happy condition, the frustration of their 
wishes and plans, remorse of conscience, &c, 
would be enough to render them miserable. 
But these are not all which they endure; since 
positive punishments, as we are taught in the 
scriptures, are inflicted on them, and will be 
more especially after the day of judgment. We 
are not able to determine accurately, from the 
language of the Bible, which is for the most part 
figurative, in what these punishments consist. 
The principal texts relating to this point, besides 
that already cited in Matt. xxv. 41, 46, are 2 
Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6. Taptapovv, or, as 
the Greeks otherwise write it, xatataptapovv, 
signifies, in Tartarum dejicere, (e cosh.) Tar- 
tarus, in the Grecian mythology, is the place 
of punishment and condemnation. Hesiod, in 
his Theogony, and Plato, in his Gorgias, repre- 
sent it as the prison of the Titans. But at a 
later period it came to signify the general place 
of suffering. It is that part of aS^j where the 
wicked were confined, and is represented as 
dark, and deep under the earth. The place of 
punishment was more commonly described by 
the Jews as run niji, ythva, and eternal fire. But 
as their notion of ysivva corresponded perfectly 
with the Grecian idea of Tartarus, they adopted 
the latter term into their own dialect, as in many 
other cases. In this place condemned men and 
spirits are confined ; and hence the latter are 
said to suffer such judgments and dreadful tor- 
ment as will constitute the punishment of wick- 
ed men after this life. Such is the representa- 
tion, Matt. xxv. 41, 46, " Depart into everlasting 
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The 
phrase, <3cipal$ %6q>ov rtapiSuxE (he bound them 
in dismal Tartarus with chains), describes their 



misery as unavoidable and remediless. Great 
wretchedness is often described by the Hebrews 
under the image of captives bound in a dark pri- 
son. The evil spirits are not as yet, however, 
chained for ever in Tartarus — i. e., they are not 
now confined to this single place of misery. 
They sometimes, under divine permission, roam 
beyond their prison, and exert their influence 
upon men. Vide Revelation, and Luke, viii. 
31, &c. But a more strict confinement and a 
higher degree of punishment are impending 
over them, as over wicked men, and will fall 
upon them at the last day : stj xpltsiv m^povvto.1, 
cf. ver. 9, and Jude, ver. 6, stj xplow (juya'kr^ 
7iuipa$. Cf. Matt. xxv. 41. The question of 
the demon, Matt. viii. 29, fy$ss §8s rfpo xat- 
pov fiarsavLvat ^,uaj, alludes to this impending 
punishment. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Hence the evil 
spirits are described as fearing God, and trem- 
bling before him as their Judge; James, ii. 19, 
Sou^uoina tppiGGOvcst-. 

Note. — Will evil spirits repent, obtain forgive- 
ness, and be restored to happiness ? These are 
questions which have often been asked in mo- 
dern times, and to which various answers have 
been given. Origen was the first among Chris- 
tian teachers who distinctly avowed the opinion 
that evil spirits would repent, and be restored 
to happiness. Vide Augustine, Con. Jul. v. 47, 
and vi. 10. This opinion has been adopted in 
modern times by theologians of the most differ- 
ent parties ; by Eberhard, in his " Apologie des 
Sokrates," th. i., by Lavater, in his "Aussicht 
in die Ewigkeit," th. iii., [Bretschneider, in his 
Handbuch, b. i. s. 691,] and others. 

If we had nothing but reason to guide us in 
our inquiries on this subject, we should proba- 
bly argue thus: — (a) If wicked men truly re- 
pent, reform, and comply with the other condi- 
tions prescribed, God will forgive them, and 
remove the punishment of their sins. But con- 
sidering that these spirits are in the highest de- 
gree depraved, that their vicious propensities, so 
long cherished, must have taken deep root, and 
that the habit of sin must have become confirmed, 
we must conclude, from all human analogy, that 
their repentance and reformation must be ex- 
tremely difficult, though we might not be able 
to pronounce it absolutely impossible. (6) But 
should they from the heart repent of their sins, 
and were it possible for them to fulfil the other 
conditions prescribed, it is probable that God, 
who is perfect goodness, and who is ready to 
forgive men on certain conditions, and who de- 
sires the salvation and happiness of all his crea- 
tures, would also forgive them, and restore them 
to his favour; or at least, he might perhaps re- 
move the positive punishments inflicted on them, 
should they comply with the conditions pre- 
scribed ; if indeed we can suppose their situa- 
tion such that conditions could be offered them— 



WORKS OF GOD. 



221 



a point which we are unabie to determine. But 
(c) since every good action has its natural and 
permanent good consequences, and every evil 
action its natural and permanent evil conse- 
quences, it is certain that the happiness of such 
repentant angels must always be less in amount 
than the happiness of those who never sinned, 
and have persevered in obedience. The former 
must always take a lower stand, in point of 
happiness and character, than the latter ; and in 
this sense we may affirm, even on principles of 
reason, that their punishment will be eternal. 

But if we inquire what Christ and the apos- 
tles teach on this subject, we can find nothing to 
justify the hope that the fallen angels will be re- 
stored. Their punishments are described as 
Sscsuoc di5iot, Jude, ver. 6 ; as 7tvp ai^viov, xb'kas^ 
aicoi/toj, Matt. xxv. 41, 46. These expressions 
do not, indeed, necessarily denote positive pu- 
nishments, although it cannot be shewn that 
natural punishments are here exclusively in- 
tended. There is some plausibility in the argu- 
ment that the words atwvtoj and diBws, like the 
Hebrew oSiy, do not denote eternity, in the strict 
philosophical sense, but only a long and inde- 
terminate duration. Vide s. 20, III. But while 
this remark is doubtless true in itself, yet in the 
passage cited, Matt. xxv. 46, x6%o.c;l$ alu>vio$ 
and £corj alu>vi.os are contrasted, and if in the lat- 
ter case aiu>vto$ is allowed to denote absolute 
eternity, what right have we to use it in the 
former case, in a less strict sense] From these 
words, therefore, no argument can be drawn in 
behalf of the cessation of the punishments of 
fallen spirits ; nor can it be shewn that these 
punishments are merely natural. The argu- 
ment for restoration is therefore left by the 
scriptures very doubtful. The consideration of 
the question will be resumed, s. 157, 158. 
[however hesitating and undecided the theolo- 
gians of the Lutheran church may be with re- 
gard to the endless punishment of the fallen 
angels, the doctrinal standards of their church 
express no doubts; and the Augsburg Confes- 
sion (Art. xvii.) expressly condemns those, 
11 qui sentiunt, hominibus damnatis ac diabolis 
finem poznarum futurum esse^ Neander sug- 
gests, that the doctrine of the final and perfect 
restoration of all things (owtoxatfatfr'atfts rtdvtiov), 
which is ascribed to Origen as its author, was 
the result of the principles of the Alexandrine 
Gnosis, and was abandoned by him at a later 
period of his life. Allg. Kirchengesch, b. i. 
abth. 3, s. 1098.— Tr.] 

III. Number and Classes of Evil Spirits. 

The New Testament gives us no definite in- 
formation with respect to the number of evil 
spirits ; but they were supposed by the Jews to 
be very many (Luke, viii. 30), and indeed are 
often mentioned in the New Testament in the 



plural. We are likewise informed that evil 
spirits compose a kingdom, and exist in a social 
relation; and hence the phrase rj j3aoa?/a *ov 
Xatavd, Matt. xii. 26. This representation 
must be understood in the same way as that in 
reference to good angels. Vide s. 61,11. They 
have a leader, prince, or commander, (o ap^cov 
tuiv Scuuovicov, Matt. xii. 24,) represented often 
as a fallen archangel, and called Beelzebub (vide 
No. iv.), also, by way of eminence, 6ia,3oXoj, 
'Za-tavd's, x. -t. %. In Rev. xii. 7, 9, in opposi- 
tion to the good angels who fought on the side 
of Michael, the angels of Satan are called ot 
dyys'kot, avtov. The names devil and Satan 
are not used in the Bible in the plural, and are 
applied only to the ap#cov tw dav/xovicov. It is 
not therefore according to scriptural usage to 
speak of devils in the plural. 

IV. Names of Evil Spirits. 

Respecting the title evil angel, vide s. 59, V. 
[Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 627; 
Hahn, Glaubenslehre, s. 294, Anm.] 

1. General appellations of evil spirits as a body, 
(a) TLvtvuata dxa^ap'ta — i. e., morally impure 
and evil ; Luke, xi. 24, et passim. Synony- 
mous with this is (6) rtvsvuaTfa Tiovrjpd, Luke, 
vii. 21 ; Ephes. vi. 12, td 7ivevuatixd v?q$ rcov/j- 
puxj. (c) Aaluoves or Scu/xowa. The etymology 
of this word is quite uncertain. In Homer and 
all the most ancient Grecian writers it means 
neither more nor less than gods, Qrsoi.) And 
although, in process of time, it acquired various 
additional meanings, it always retained this. It 
is accordingly used by the LXX. to denote the 
heathen gods (n^Ss,) and also in 1 Cor. x. 20, 
21, and Rev. ix. 20, where Sacp.6v(,a and ddioha 
are connected. It was very commonly used in 
this sense by the Attic writers ; and so, when 
Paul was at Athens, (Acts, xvii. 18,) some be- 
lieved that he wished to introduce iiva oat^oj/ta, 
foreign deities. But the name 8aiuov£$ was 
afterwards given by the Greeks to those invi- 
sible beings whom they supposed, in connexion 
with their deities, to exert an agency in the 
world. Hence datuovs?, is the name given by 
Pythagoras, Plato, and others, to the human 
soul, even when connected with the body, but 
especially when separated from it. The inter- 
mediate spirits between God and our race — 
deified men, and heroes, were also called de- 
mons. And lastly, the internal spring, impulse, 
the foreboding or presentiment of the mind, which 
appeared so inexplicable to Socrates, and which 
he therefore personified and deified, was called 
by him his Scu/xoviov. Whenever this invisible 
agent was the cause of good to men, it was 
called dya^obaifiutv or sv8ai/xoiv ; and when the 
cause of evil, xaxoSalfxuv. At the time of 
Christ and the apostles, daifiuv was a common 
appellation given by the Grecian Jews to evil 
t2 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



spirits; those morally so, and indeed by the 
Apocryphal writers also. Vide Tob. iii. 8, 
rtovrjpov Sai/xoviov. In the evangelists, the 
phrases 7tv£vy.ata axd^apta and rtovrjpd are in- 
terchanged, times without number, with 8al- 
[ioves and rtvEv/x-a Scuuovvov dxa^tdp^ov. In Matt. 
xii. 24, Sa^ovEj are distinctly mentioned as be- 
longing to the kingdom of the devil. The 
woman who is described in Luke, xiii. 11, as 
rtvevua l%ov6a da&vsias, is said (ver. 16) to be 
one vjv tSyjciev u Xar'avaj. Vide s. 64, I. 2. The 
opinion of Farmer, therefore, in his " Essay on 
Demoniacs," that other spirits — gods, departed 
souls, &c, and not devils — were intended in the 
New Testament by this appellation is unfound- 
ed. In James, ii. 19, 8at,[i6vta has clearly the 
signification above given. But how came 8al- 
(x o v s $ to have this peculiar signification among 
the Grecian Jews? The LXX. usually rendered 
the Hebrew words which signify idols by the 
word Bulfwvss, and the Greeks called their gods 
by this name. Now the Jews connected with 
this name their idea that evil spirits ruled in the 
heathen world, and caused themselves to be 
worshipped as gods, under the names of Jupiter, 
Mercury, &c, and had seduced the heathen into 
this idolatry. Hence 8aluov£$ and evil spirits 
came to be regarded by them as synonymous 
terms. 

2. But one of the evil spirits is represented 
as their prince, leader, commander. Vide No. 
iii., and Morus, p. 91, s. 10. He is called by 
various names, (a) Satan, p&, Sowavaj, lite- 
rally, enemy, fiend, accuser, Ps. cix. 6 ; Job, ii. 
(s. 58) ; Matt. xvi. 23 ; and hence, by way of 
eminence, princeps dsemonum, because he is re- 
presented as the greatest enemy of man, and of 
the kingdom of truth and holiness. Synony- 
mous with this title are the names 6 E^poj and 
6 fotlSucos, (b) 'O 7tovrjp6^, malignus, noxious, 
the foe of man. This name is frequently given 
him by John; as 1 John, ii. 13, 14. (c) Avd- 
jSoXoj is the most common Grecian name of the 
devil ; and from this word our devil and the 
German Teufel are derived. It signifies fiend, 
destroyer of peace, calumniator. The LXX. ren- 
dered the Hebrew pp by Sta^oTioj, Job, i. 6 ; Ps. 
cix. 6. This name was sometimes applied to 
men, 1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Tit. ii. 3. (d) Bsiu'oa or 
Be%lap, 2 Cor. vi. 15, from SjnSa, compounded 
of ^3, not, and bjr, high — i. e., low, abject. It 
has different senses. In the Old Testament it 
sometimes signified the under world, the king- 
dom of the dead, Psalm xviii. 5 ; and sometimes 
unworthy men, abject principles, Deut. xiii. 13. 
After the Babylonian exile it was frequently 
used as the name of the devil, and occurs once 
in this sense in the New Testament, 2 Cor. vi. 
15, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" 
— i. e., How can the worship of Christ con- 
sist with the worship of the devil (idolatry) 1 



(e) Be£7^sj3ovj3, or Bteh&fiov'k, who is expressly 
called dpx^>v tw S<xl[a.ovicc>v, Matt. xii. 24. This 
was an appellation very common among the 
Jews at the time of Christ. In 2 Kings, i. 2, 
Beelzebub appears as a god of the Philistines. 
The name when written with final J3, is derived 
from 313? Sys. It most probably means, God of 
the flies, Fly-Baal, Deus averruncus muscarum, 
whose office it was to protect his worshippers 
from the flies, which were among the greatest 
plagues of Egypt and Philistia. [It corres- 
ponds with the Greek Zsv$ drfoputo?.] Accord- 
ing to the later Jews, it means dominus crimi- 
nationis, accuser, complainant, and is synony- 
mous with 6taj3oXoj and Xa-tavds, from the Sy- 
riac 3 2T, which signifies criminari. The other 
form, Bss%^ov%, is derived from S12? Sja, and is 
either an intentional alteration of the word into 
an epithet of disgrace, and so signifies deus ster- 
coris (Mistgott), from S3?, stercus ,• or signifies, 
deus, or proefectus sepulcri, (as h\2i signifies in 
Chaldaic and Syriac,) dominus inferni, or infe- 
rorum, 6 xpdioc, i%Z>v toy ^tavdtov, Heb. ii. 14. 
It was at first, then, the name of the angel of 
death, and afterwards of the devil, when he was 
supposed to be the same person. (/) 'O 8pdxcov 
6 ,ufyaj, and 6 o^nj o dp^ouoj, Rev. xii. 9, 13. 
This appellation might have been given to him 
from his general character for cunning and de- 
ceit, (o Tt%avuv ir\v oIxovixsvtjv.^) But the word 
dp^atoj evidently alludes to Gen. iii., since the 
agency of the devil in the occurrence there de- 
scribed was doubtless believed by the Jews at 
the time of Christ. 

3. The Jews gave particular names to evil as 
well as to good spirits. Among these is 'Acpo- 
Satoj, Jlsmodi, mentioned in the book of Tobias, 
iii. 8, also Sarnael, Jzazel, &c. But none of 
these proper names of evil spirits occur in the 
New Testament, unless the name of the angel 
of destruction, 'Aj5a88uv — i. q., 'A7io7JKvcnv, — o 
dyyfTio? t?j$ dj5v60ov, Rev. ix. 11, be considered 
as such. 

SECTION LXIV. 

OF THE EMPLOYMENTS AND THE EFFECTS OF 
EVIL SPIRITS. 

I. Objections to the common theory. 

The power of Satan and his influence upon 
men were formerly stated in a very exaggerated 
manner, and represented as excessively great 
and fearful ; and this view was the more plausi- 
ble, as it seemed to be supported by many pas- 
sages in the New Testament. But this mistake 
would have been avoided if the true spirit of the 
Bible had been more justly apprehended, and 
the true meaning of its language better under- 
stood. Vide No. ii. According to the common 
theory, evil spirits were supposed to be actively 



WORKS OF GOD. 



223 



employed at their own pleasure all over the I 
earth, to have immediate influence on the souls 
of men; to inspire wicked thoughts, doubts, and 
anxieties ; to intrude themselves into all societies 
and mysteries ; and to rule in the air, and over 
the whole material world. Such are the opinions 
which formerly prevailed to a great extent, and 
which are often found in the older ecclesiastical 
writers. They were long preserved, and trans- 
mitted from one age to another with more or less 
of exaggeration. And many theologians of the 
protestant church, even in the sixteenth century, 
held opinions on this subject which were more 
conformed to the prevailing superstitious ideas 
of that age than to reason or scripture. Luther 
and Melancthon were inclined to the belief that 
good and evil spirits were at all times present in 
the world, and stood in a very intimate relation 
to men. In the symbols of the Lutheran church, 
however, the connexion of superior spirits with 
the world is not very minutely determined, and 
the doctrine of demons is exhibited in the gene- 
ral Biblical phraseology. Thus, in the Augs- 
burg Confession many texts of scripture are 
cited, but no definite meaning is affixed to them. 
Many of the ideas formerly prevalent on this 
subject are either wholly without foundation, or 
are carried beyond the bounds of truth. For, 

1. It is contradictory to the ideas of the power, 
wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God which 
we derive from the Bible and from reason, to 
ascribe to the devil such vast and almost infinite 
power. Nor can we see any rational way of 
accounting for it that God should permit so great 
and injurious an influence to be exerted in the 
world. 

2. The opinion maintained by some that evil 
spirits can produce wicked thoughts in the minds 
of men by an immediate influence is incapable 
of proof. The evil influences exerted on the 
human mind have by some been supposed to be 
as immediate and efficient as the divine influ- 
ences ; and as God infuses good thoughts, as he 
inspired prophets and apostles, so does Satan, it 
is supposed, directly infuse evil thoughts into 
the minds of the wicked, and into the minds of 
the good also, when he is permitted so to do by 
God. That these inspirations of the devil can 
be distinguished by any certain signs from 
thoughts and desires which arise in the mind 
from other sources is not pretended ; this opi- 
nion, therefore, cannot be established by expe- 
rience, and certainly it cannot be derived from 
scripture; at least, the opinion that evil spirits 
io always or commonly exert an immediate in- 
fluence of this kind cannot be proved from the 
Bible. 

3. This theory, when carried to the length to 
which it has sometimes been carried, is incon- 
sistent with human freedom. . If the agency of 
Satan was of the nature often believed, man 



would not be the agent of the wicked actions he 
seems to perform, but merely the instrument of 
the irresistible influence of Satan; and thus an 
excuse for sin would be furnished. 

4. In many texts in the New Testament in 
which the common origin of particular sins is 
described, Satan is not mentioned, but their ex- 
istence is accounted for in another way, agree- 
able alike to reason and experience. Cf. espe- 
cially James, i. 13 — 15, " Let no man say, when 
he is tempted, I am tempted of God. Every man 
is tempted when he is drawn away of his own 
lust, and enticed, when he gives indulgence to 
rising desires, which is internal sin. "When lust 
hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, (it breaks 
forth in sinful words and works, which is exter- 
nal sm,-) and sin, when it is brought into the 
world, bringeth forth death, (its uniform conse- 
quence is misery. y Cf. Matthew, xv. 19 ; Gal. 
v. 16 — 21 ; Rom. vii. 5, 8, seq. 

From these texts, however, we cannot con- 
clude, as some have done, that the Bible excludes 
the agency of Satan in the sins of men. This 
would be an extreme equally contrary to the 
scriptures with the other, for the Bible expressly 
teaches (a) that Satan is hostile to man, and is 
active in promoting wickedness, Eph. ii. 2, vi. 
11, seq., &c. Moms, p. 92, 93, n. i. (6) That 
he contributes something to the sins which pre- 
vail among men — e. g., 1 Cor. vii. 5, where 
Satan is distinguished from dxpacaa, incontinence, 
to which he is said to tempt men ; from which 
it is clear, as Moras justly observes, that Satan 
is not used in the scriptures to denote merely an 
abstract idea, and moral evil. Vide ubi supra, 
n. 2. (c) That he opposes goodness; Luke, 
viii. 12; John, viii. 44; and is therefore the 
enemy of Christianity and morality. Vide ubi 
supra, n. 3. This is what the Bible teaches ; 
still it does not deny that the ignorance of man, 
his sinful passions, and other causes, have a 
tendency to lead him to sin; nor does it under- 
take to determine the manner in which Satan 
does what is ascribed to him ; nor does it justify 
us in deciding in particular cases whether Satan 
has had any agency in the crimes committed, or 
what and how much it may have been. So 
thought Origen (jttpl dp^wv, iii.) and many of 
the ecclesiastical fathers, who endeavoured to 
rectify the unscriptural notions respecting the 
power of the devil which were entertained by 
many of their contemporaries. 

The extravagant opinions which formerly pre- 
vailed on this subject were the means of much 
injury, as appears from experience, (a) They 
led the common people to what was, in effect, a 
belief in two gods — a good and an evil deity ; 
and also to entertain false conceptions of the at- 
tributes of the true God, which could not have 
been without a practical influence on the life. 
(|3) They often furnished a real hindrance to 



Ml 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



moral improvement; for instead of seeking for 
the origin of sin in themselves, and endeavour- 
ing to stop its sources, — instead of becoming 
acquainted with, and avoiding the external oc- 
casions of sin, — they laid the whole blame of it 
upon Satan, and when they had made him guilty, 
held themselves sufficiently justified and excul- 
pated, (y) They gave rise to many other false 
opinions and superstitious practices, similar to 
some already existing among the Jews. Ori- 
gen, Eusebius, and Augustine, represent demons 
as fluttering about in the air, from the misun- 
derstanding of Eph. ii. 2. Vide No. ii. Euse- 
bius speaks of them as present at pagan sacri- 
fices, regaling themselves with the sweet savour, 
according to an opinion which prevailed both 
among the Jews and Greeks respecting their 
gods. Sometimes they are represented as 
speaking in the heathen oracles, and plotting 
evil against men at prayer ; to secure themselves 
against which, the ancient saints, as appears 
from the fabulous histories of their lives, were 
accustomed to make use of the sign of the cross. 
They were supposed to keep themselves in de- 
serts, swamps, and subterranean caves, Is. 
xxxiv. 13, 14; Matt. iv. 1; Luke, xi. 24; 1 
Sam. xviii. ; and also to dwell in men before 
their baptism, even in the children of Christian 
parents, and not merely in the heathen, as was 
at first supposed ; and this gave origin to the rite 
of exorcism. Vide Doderlein, Disp. de redemp- 
tione a potestate diaboli; Altorf, 1774, 4to; also 
in his " OpusculaTheologica ;" Jense, 1789, 8vo. 
Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, th. i. st. 2, 
" Die Lehre von den Versuchungen des Teufels 
ist nicht praktisch." Runge, Man muss auch 
dem Teufel nicht zu viel aufbiirden; Bremen, 
1776, 8vo. 

In opposing these false and superstitious no- 
tions, many, however, fell into an opposite 
fault, and wholly denied the power and influ- 
ence of evil spirits, and explained the passages 
of the Bible relating to this subject in an arbi- 
trary manner, in order to make them agree with 
their own previously established theories. It 
was with the texts relating to this doctrine that 
the Rationalists began, about the middle of the 
eighteenth century, to indulge themselves in 
that arbitrary mode of interpretation which they 
have since applied to such other doctrines of the 
Bible as they have wished to reject. 

II. Remarks on some texts relating to this subject. 

The general notion which formerly prevailed 
among the Jews respecting evil spirits, and 
which has been adopted and authorized by the 
writers of the New Testament, is, that they are 
the authors and promoters of evil among men, 
John, vhi. 44. The following general doctrines 
are at the basis of the Biblical representations 
of this subject.. 



1. God is indeed the governor of all mankind; 
but he is especially the kind father, benefactor, 
and protector of those who truly reverence his 
authority, obey his precepts, and in their conduct 
endeavour to imitate him. Of these his kingdom 
is composed ; they are citizens of it, children of 
God,- by which appellation is meant, that they 
are those who honour, love, and obey him, as 
dutiful children do their father; and whom, 
therefore, he loves in return, as a good father 
does his dutiful children. Now as the Israelites 
were in ancient times selected by God as the 
means of diffusing the true knowledge of him- 
self and pure morals, and for the accomplish- 
ment of other great designs, they are called, in 
an eminent sense, his people, his children, and 
he, their king and father. These titles are pro- 
perly transferred by the writers of the New 
Testament to Christians, who take the place of 
the Israelites, and succeed them in all their 
rights. Christians now constitute the kingdom 
of God ; they are his house, his family ; he is 
their father and counsellor; and he employs in 
their behalf the good angels, who are the invi- 
sible instruments of his providence. After the 
same manner, the great mass of mankind — the 
xog/aos, (as the heathen world is called, from the 
multitude of which it is composed,) and the 
6%6-tos, (as it is also called, from the ignorance 
and moral corruption that prevails over it) — has 
also its invisible head. It is governed by the 
spirits who are at enmity with God, and by their 
prince the devil. To whomsoever men yield 
obedience, his children they are, and to his 
kingdom they belong, John, viii. 44. And thus 
all those who follow their sinful passions and 
desires, who are the servants of sin, and resist 
the will of God, are said to obey the devil, or to 
stand under his dominion, because they act ac- 
cording to his will, and imitate him. And so 
the heathen, who have no true knowledge of 
God, and whose moral character is debased, are 
said to belong to his kingdom. The supremacy 
here spoken of is, then, of a moral nature, found- 
ed upon resemblance in conduct, moral charac- 
ter, and opinion. 

2. There is another doctrine intimately con- 
nected with this. As Satan opposes the designs 
of God, and does only evil, he is represented as 
the seducer of our first parents, and so the author 
of sin among men, and of all its evil conse- 
quences. Vide Book of Wisdom, ii. 24. He is 
generally described as the great enemy of man, 
o £#3tp6s, av$pc*Ttoxt6vo$. Vide Morus, p. 92, 
sec. 11. According to this view, the events 
narrated in Gen. iii. were referred to Satan by 
the Jews, in which they were followed by the 
New-Testament writers, John, viii. 44; 1 John, 
iii. 8 ; Rev. xii. 9. Since the time of the first 
apostasy, men are born with a strong and pre- 
dominant bias and propensity to sin, Rom. vii. 



WORKS OF GOD. 



225 



23, coll. v. 12, 19. This now, and everything 
regarded as a consequence of the apostasy to 
which Satan tempted our first parents, is con- 
sidered as belonging to his kingdom, and is 
ascribed to his influence, even in those cases in 
which he himself may not have been imme- 
diately engaged. Thus all errors, especially 
those in religion, all wickedness, deceitfulness, 
and whatever else is offensive to God, are 
ascribed to him, even when he himself has not 
been personally or immediately active in pro- 
moting them; and this, because he is the first 
cause of all this evil which has followed ; just 
as, on the contrary, all the good which is op- 
posed to this evil is ascribed to God, even in 
those cases where he has not immediately pro- 
duced it, only because it is according to his 
will, and results from the wise institutes which 
he has founded. And so everything connected 
with moral evil, as cause or as consequence, 
and all wicked men, (o xoiuos, 6 ax6to$.) belong 
to the kingdom of Satan, (vide Moms, p. 91, 
Num. 1 ;) while, on the contrary, all the pious, 
and all moral goodness, with its causes and con- 
sequences, belong to the kingdom of light — the 
kingdom of God, or of Jesus Christ. Vide the 
texts referred to, uhi supra. From what has 
now been said, light is cast upon the following 
Biblical representations and expressions : — " 

(a) The prevalence of immorality and the 
diffusion of false religious observances are 
striking proofs of the great corruption of human 
nature; they are accordingly ascribed in a pe- 
culiar sense to the influence of evil spirits, who 
are hence called the gods or rulers of this world. 
Eph. ii. 2, ap^cov trfi t'govatag tov as'poj, prince 
of the power of darkness, (asjp, tenebree, Homer, 
Od. ix. 144; Virgil, acre sepsit) — i. e., of the 
heathen world, darkened by ignorance and error. 
Cf. Eph. vi. 12, ol xoG t uoz pat opa$ tov axotovs 
tov cuwvoj tovtov. To the former passage the 
apostle subjoins the declaration that evil spirits 
were £v£pyovv?£$ h viol$ trj drtst^fJa?, and in 
ver. 3 mentions at era^vLuai, trfi oapxbs, the de- 
sires which spring from our bodily nature, and 
which lead to immorality. Satan is called in 
the same sense 6 £e6$ tov atwvo? tovtov, who 
blinds the understanding of the unbelieving, 2 
Cor. iv. 4; also ap^cov tov xosucv, John, xii. 
31 ; xvi. 11 ; and paganism, irreligion, and im- 
morality, are called sfousJa tov Sarara, Acts, 
xxvi. 18 ; while the Christian church, the object 
of which is to make men pious, and to prepare 
them to become citizens of the society of the 
blessed above, is called jScwito t'a tov Tlov Qsov, 
Col. i. 13 

(b) Christ carne into the world in order to re- 
move the misery and disorder arising from the 
seduction of our first parents by the devil, and 
to shew us the way to true holiness and happi- 
ness. 1 John, iii. 8, e^avtpw^ — I'va 7,v^ ** 

29 



t'pya tov 5ia36tov, and according to Col. ii. 15 
Christ prevailed and triumphed over Sataa. 
The works of the devil are sin, and everything - 
by which sin and unbelief are occasioned. 
Where sin, and misery as its consequence, pre- 
vail, there Satan rules. John says, in the pas- 
sage above cited, 6 7toiZ>v x'^v d/xaptiav, ix tov 
bio.3o7.ov iaxiv. Thus he rules over unbelieving 
Jews and Christians, as well as over the hea- 
then, John, viii. 44. 

(c) All the hindrances to the spread of Chris- 
tianity, and to the prevalence of that piety and 
holiness which Christianity is intended to pro- 
mote — all the temptations and persecutions 
which Christians are called to endure; — in 
short, the whole system of efforts opposed to 
Christianity, are regarded as the works of Satan, 
and the enemies of Christianity as his instru- 
ments. Morus, p. 91, s. 9, note. Hence, when 
Judas formed the infernal purpose (as we should 
say) of betraying Christ, it is said, the devil en- 
tered into him — i. e., took possession of him, 
John, xiii. 2, 27, coll. Acts, v. 3. By the 
wiles of the devil, Eph. vi. 11, seq., the persecu- 
tions which Christians were called to endure, 
and the efforts made to turn them aside from the 
truth, are principally intended. Cf. 1. Pet. v. 
8, 9, where rta^uafa are expressly mentioned. 
The enemies of Christians are the instruments 
by which he brings suffering upon them, in 
order to injure them and lead them to apostasy 
and unbelief. He has a hand also in the 
schisms, controversies, and heresies which arise 
among Christians themselves, 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; xi. 
14, 15, 8'mxovoc Xatavd* Unbelief in particular 
individuals is also ascribed to him, Luke, xxii. 
31, as are all gross vices and crimes. 

(.d) Death, and every other evil which may 
be regarded as the punishment of sin, is also 
ascribed to the devil, and is said to have come 
into the world through him ; Book of Wisdom, 
ii. 4; John, viii. 44 ; Heb.ii. 14. In the last pas- 
sage he is described as the one who has power over 
death, to xpotoc, i%Z>v tov ^-avdtov. which is taken 
from the image of the angel of death, Asmodi, 
or Samael. And as sickness may also be re- 
garded as the punishment of sin, they too are 
often represented as the works of the devil. 
We are prevented, however, from considering 
Satan as the sole and independent cause of the 
death of men, by those texts in which the power 
over life and death, and the whole disposal of 
the destinies of man, is ascribed to God alone. 
The representation, therefore, that Satan is the 
author of death and misery, is to be understood 
figuratively ; for he is such to individuals only 
as he was the first cause of that apostasy of man 
which brought death and misery upon our race. 
Still we are taught in the Bible, that for the 
same wise reasons which lead him to permit 
other evils, for the attainment of certain good 



226 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ends, not otherwise attainable, God allows more 
power to evil spirits, in particular cases and at 
certain times, than they commonly possess. 

(e) But evil spirits, according to the doctrine 
of the Bible, cannot, with all their efforts, do 
us harm, unless we resemble them in our dis- 
position, and are ourselves devoted to sin; 1 
John, v. 18; iii. 8; John, viii. 44. Christ has 
robbed evil spirits of their power, has conquered 
them — i. e., has rendered them harmless to those 
who believe in him ; and this he has done, partly 
by delivering us from the punishment of sin, 
and partly by freeing us from its power and 
dominion, — the one, by his sufferings and death, 
the other, by his instructions and example. All 
those, therefore, who, in compliance with his 
precepts, and in conformity with his example, 
keep themselves from sin, or are pardoned for 
sins already committed, are secured against the 
temptations and wiles of evil spirits, 1 John, v. 
18. Prayer, faith in Christ, the wholesome use 
of his precepts, watchfulness, in short, the means 
prescribed in the Bible for security against vice 
and sin, — these, and only these, are the means 
appointed for security against evil spirits; Eph. 
vi. 11 — 18; 1 Peter, v. 8, seq. ; James, i. 14; 
iv. 7. Moms, p. 93, n. 6. The excuse, there- 
fore, that one has been tempted of the devil, and 
is on that account exculpated, is always un- 
founded, even in those cases, if such occur, in 
which it is capable of proof that the inducement 
to sin was really offered by the devil; for he 
could not, according to the doctrine of the Bible, 
have found this opportunitjr unless the nature 
of our hearts had been depraved, 1 Cor. vii. 5. 
In those cases only in which men indulge the 
sinful desires of their own hearts (James, i. 14) 
are they liable to temptations either from the 
devil or any other quarter; they themselves, 
in such cases, are always in fault. 



APPENDIX. 

POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY 
AND THE MATERIAL WORLD. 



SECTION LXV. 

OF THE BODILY POSSESSIONS RECORDED IN THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 

I. Meaning of the term "Possession." 

Originally it was doubtless supposed to de- 
note a real indwelling in the human body. An 
agent, in order to exert an influence on the hu- 
man body, must, it was thought, be near to it, 
and substantially dwell in it, as the soul dwells 
in the body. Such was at first the general, in- 
determinate notion. But it was afterwards re- 



fined upon, and the belief in a literal, substantial 
indwelling of the devil was abandoned, and the 
term possession was understood to indicate 
merely the powerful influence which Satan 
sometimes exerted in controlling and abusing 
the bodies of men said to be possessed. In the 
New Testament we do indeed sometimes meet 
w T ith a phrase like the following, Sara-va* 
s LGrjh^sv eij twa (IovSav), John, xiii. 27; 
but by this phrase nothing more than an obsessio 
spiritualis, an influence upon the mind, is intend- 
ed; and the common expressions are, t^siv Sou- 
fxoviov, dai[Aovt£so$cu, x.t.%. The term posses- 
sion is not used in the New Testament, although 
Josephus speaks of riovyjpa Tivsv/xata xai 6at^6- 
vca iyxa§s£6[A£va (insidentia), Ant. vi. 11 ; and 
of 7tv£vpa?a ivSvopeva, (induentes se, sive, in- 
gredientes,) Bell. Jud. vii. 6. The words to 
possess, and possession, are exact translations of 
the Latin words possidere, obsidere, possessio, ob- 
sessio, which were first used in relation to this 
subject by the Latin fathers and schoolmen. 
Obsidere is synonymous with occupare, implere, 
and is so employed by Cicero, where he says, 
corpnribus omnis obsidetur locus. It was then 
spoken figuratively of the orator, who possesses 
himself of his hearers, and gains them over to 
his own views, obsidet ac tenet auditorem, Ci- 
cero, De Orat. 62. Possidere is also sometimes 
used for tenere, inpotestate sua habere. So Pliny, 
Hist. Nat. xxx. 1, says, with regard to magic, 
possideri ed hominum sensus vinculis, the senses 
of men were controlled by magic as by chains, 
were held absolutely under its power; and in 
the same place, Gallias possedit magia, because 
it was very prevalent and deeply rooted in Gaul. 
Hence when one was afflicted with an obstinate 
and fixed disease, he was said possessum esse; 
so Aurelian, a physician in Africa, near the 
close of the second century, says of one who 
w r as afflicted with epilepsy, passione possessum 
esse. This phraseology was now applied par- 
ticularly to those diseases which were ascribed 
to the immediate agency of demons. The Bi- 
blical terms which have the nearest resemblance 
to this phraseology are those which are found 
in Luke, xiii. 16, where Satan is said to have 
bound (c'g^cTf) a sick woman; and in Acts, x. 
38, where some are described as xatadwastsvo- 
{ihvoi VTib tov BiajSo'kov- 

II. His tory of this Doctrine. 

1. Among the Greeks. The belief of this doc- 
trine is found among many heathen nations both 
of ancient and modern times. The general ori- 
gin of this idea is to be sought in the fact that 
uncultivated men are in the habit of ascribing 
everything, the immediate cause of which they 
do not perceive, (especially if the thing is in 
any degree extraordinary,) to the direct influ- 
ence of the Deity, or of some other spiritual 



WORKS OF GOD. 



227 



agent more powerful than man. Whatever of 
this kind is good or desirable they regard as an 
effect proceeding immediately from good spirits ; 
and the opposite, from evil spirits. Cf. s. 58, 
II. Thus it came to pass that evil spirits were 
considered often as the authors of all kinds of 
sickness, and especially of those diseases which 
were attended with unusual and inexplicable 
phenomena. For the cure of such diseases, which 
were supposed to be miraculously inflicted by a 
malignant deity, or by demons, and therefore 
to be beyond the reach of human art, resort was 
had to miraculous remedies. The diseases which 
have commonly been regarded by different na- 
tions as of this miraculous nature are, melan- 
choly, madness ,• also such nervous diseases as are 
attended with the more frightful appearances — 
cramp, epilepsy, lunacy, &c. These general 
opinions prevailed among the Greeks, as ap- 
pears from the writings of some of their oldest 
physicians — e. g., Hippocrates, who lived 400 
years before Christ, and wrote jtspi tr^ tepijs, 
voaov, also Galen, and Aretaeus of Cappadocia, 
who is quoted by Wetstein, Nov. Test. torn. i. 
p. 282, seq. Hence it was common among the 
Greeks to use the phrases Sai/xovav, xaxo§aiy.o- 
vav, and haifxoviov £%sw, as synonymous with 
fialvsa^ai. This is seen in the writings of Xe- 
nophon, Aristophanes, and others ; and also in 
the New Testament, as John, vii. 20 ; x. 20, 
21. In the earliest ages, the Greeks ascribed 
such diseases as those above mentioned to some 
malignant deity. Thus it is said even in Homer, 
Odyssey, v. 396 — 

expat (TTvytpos daijjioji/. 

But when, at a later period, the doctrine of in- 
termediate spirits was received among the 
Greeks, and these spirits were called Sou^owf, 
(demigods, heroes, and the souls of the depart- 
ed;) they were now censidered as the authors 
of these evils ; and this not by the people only, 
but by many of the philosophers, who adopted 
these ideas into their systems, and formed theo- 
ries respecting them, as was the case with the 
New Pythagoreans and the New Platonists, es- 
pecially in Egypt, both before and after the birth 
of Christ. But Hippocrates, Galen, and some 
other Greek physicians, who supposed they 
could explain these diseases in part from natu- 
ral causes, rejected this prevailing opinion as 
superstitious ; and in this many of the philoso- 
phers agreed with them. Origen remarks, in 
his Commentary en Matt, xvii., that the physi- 
cians in his day did not believe in possessions. 
They, however, retained the expressions which 
were in common use among the people on this 
subject; such 3s8aijxovC^sa^tat, Sat'jucov Eloipxe-tai, 
ffsp^f-r'at, ixpaTJkttai,, ^tac vocjot. 

2. Among the Jews. 

(a) There is no mention made of possessions 



in any part of the Old Testament, either in the 
older books, or in those composed after the Ba- 
bylonian exile. It is indeed often said that par- 
ticular diseases, or deaths, were inflicted by 
God, or by his angels, even by evil angels 
(messengers of evil) sent by him. Vide s. 58. 
But this does not at all correspond with the idea 
of demoniacal possessions entertained at a later 
period by the Jews. There is one passage, 
however, 1 Sam. xvi. 14 — 23, where an evil 
spirit is said to come upon Saul, which has 
sometimes been appealed to on this subject. 
But the evil spirit here mentioned was not one 
whose moral character was evil ; and in this re- 
spect, therefore, the case of Saul is distinguish- 
ed from the cases of bodily possession in the 
New Testament. The evil spirit here mention- 
ed is an evil spirit from Jehovah, in opposition 
to the good spirit which came from Jehovah 
upon David, ver. 13, and previously upon Saul 
himself, 1 Sam. x. 10. This good spirit in- 
spired him with a high and kingly disposition, 
and with resolution for great and good deeds; 
but the other spirit was to him the messenger 
of evil, and harassed him with anxiety and me- 
lancholy, which ended in total madness. Nor 
is there any mention of bodily possessions in 
the Grecian apocryphal books which were writ- 
ten before the coming of Christ; in short, no 
trace of this opinion can be found among the 
Jews before the Christian era. 

(b) But the age of Christ and his apostles is 
altogether remarkable in this respect. There 
were then in Judaea and Galilee many sick per- 
sons, whose diseases were considered by the 
great body of the Jews (the Sadducees, perhaps, 
only excepted) as the effects of the agency of 
evil spirits. It is worthy of notice that this is 
not found to be the case at all in the age pre- 
ceding that of Christ, nor, at least in the same 
degree, in those which followed it. We see 
from the New Testament that Jesus, and after 
him the apostles, healed many of these diseases ; 
nor do we anywhere find that Jesus assigned 
other causes for these diseases than those to 
which they were supposed to be owing by the 
contemporary Jews ; nor that on this subject 
more than on others the apostles and evangelists 
undertook to go farther than iheir Master. We 
see also, from the New Testament, that the 
Pharisees interested themselves in this subject, 
and at least attempted the cure of some of these 
diseases. Cf. Matt. xii. 27. The truth of 
these facts — viz., that there were at that time 
sick persons of this description in Palestine and 
its vicinity — that the) 7 were there almost univer- 
sally regarded as possessed of evil spirits, and 
that many, especially from among the Pharisees, 
appeared as exorcists, is confirmed by the testi- 
mony of Josephus, Ant. viii. 2. A few only of 
the Jews, who pretended to be more liberal and 



229 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



enlightened than the rest, either wholly rejected 
the belief of possessions, and indeed of the ex- 
istence of evil spirits, (as was done by the Sad- 
ducees in Palestine,) or adopted the opinion of 
the later Greeks, according 1 to which demons 
were regarded, not as evil angels, but as a sort 
of intermediate spirits — the souls of the de- 
ceased, &c, as was done by some of the more 
learned Jews, who wished to conform to the 
philosophy of the age. Of this class was Jose- 
phus, who says, Bel. Jud. vii. 6, ta xa^ov/xsva 
Sai^ona — 7tovr t pu>v £<3T?t cU/^pwrfcov rtvsvfxara. 

(c) The Jews of later times, after the second 
century, believed very generally, not only that 
there had been possessions formerly, but that 
instances of the same kind sometimes occurred 
even in their own day. The latter opinion was, 
however, denied by Maimonides and some other 
Rabbins ; while others, with the Sadducees, re- 
jected the whole doctrine of evil spirits, and 
declared themselves decidedly for adsemonism. 
Vide Wetstein, ubi supra. 

3. Among Christians since the second century. 

(a) The early Christian teachers since the 
second century are united in the opinion that 
the so called demoniacs of the New Testament 
were truly possessed by the devil, because 
Christ expressly declared them to be so. This 
was the opinion of Origen himself. They 
moreover believed that there might be, and ac- 
tually were, demoniacs in their own day ; al- 
though we have not sufficient evidence to con- 
vince us that those whom they regarded as pos- 
sessed were so in truth. But as this was 
believed by the Christians of that day, exorcists 
soon appeared among them, who adjured the 
demons in the name of Jesus to depart, and who 
were afterwards in many places established as 
regular officers of the church, and placed in the 
same rank with the clergy. Among these Chris- 
tian teachers of the second and third centuries 
there were many New Platonists, who contri- 
buted much to the diffusion of the belief that 
possessions continued beyond the first ages of 
the church, and who, in full accordance with 
the philosophic theory which they had adopt- 
ed, understood by the demons supposed to 
occupy the body, not evil spirits, but tyvxal 
a7io^ravovtu>v — the opinion of Josephus, as 
stated above, No. i. Such is the doctrine 
expressed by Justin the Martyr, Apoll. ii. 
This latter opinion, however, was not univer- 
sal, and gradually disappeared, as the influ- 
ence of the New Platonic philosophy ceased ; 
though a belief in the continuance of real pos- 
sessions still prevailed both in the Eastern and 
Western church, and in the latter was retained 
even by the schoolmen. At no time, however, 
was the belief that evil spirits have power to 
possess the bodies of men, even since the age 



of Christ, more prevalent in the Western church 
than from the end of the fifteenth to the middk 
of the seventeenth century. Hence we find thnt 
this belief was received even by Luther and 
Melancthon, and other theologians of both the 
protestant churches, and was transmitted by 
their disciples to those who came after them. 

(b) But about the middle of the seventeenth 
century some doubts arose with regard to demo- 
niacal possessions, and in general with respect 
to the whole notion that the power of evil spi- 
rits, especially over the material world, still 
continued. These doubts were engendered at 
first by the prevalence of the principles of the 
Cartesian philosophy. The first public attack 
was made upon this doctrine in England, about 
the year 1676, and was shortly followed up in 
France. But a new epoch in the history of this 
doctrine was made by Balthasar Becker, a Car- 
tesian philosopher, and a preacher at Amster- 
dam, who in 1690 published at Leuwarden a 
quarto volume, entitled, The Enchanted World, 
afterwards translated into German by Schwager, 
and published at Leipsic, 1781-82, with a pre- 
face and notes by Scmler. This work attracted 
great notice, and the author of it was severely 
persecuted. He did not deny the existence of 
evil spirits, but only their influence upon men, 
and, of course, all demoniacal possessions, even 
those mentioned in the New Testament. His 
opinions met with great approbation at the be- 
ginning of the eighteenth century in England 
and the Netherlands, and were adopted and ad- 
vocated by Wetstein, Le Clerc, and many other 
Arminian theologians; but in Germany and 
Holland these opinions were uniformly reject- 
ed by the protestant theologians during the 
first half of the eighteenth century; nor did 
evenThomasius agree with Becker on this sub- 
ject. Semler was the first among the pro- 
testant theologians of Germany who adopted, 
with some modifications, the opinions of Becker, 
and supposed that the demoniacs of the New 
Testament were people afflicted with common 
and natural diseases. He first published an es- 
say, De daemoniacis quorum in Nov. Test, fit 
mentio; Halle, 1760; and afterwards his larger 
work, Untersuchung der damonischen Leute; 
Halle, 1762; which were followed by still other 
writings on the same subject. This opinion at 
first excited great attention, and had to encoun- 
ter strong opposition, but it gradually gained 
ground, until it has now become almost the 
prevailing opinion among the learned theologians 
of the protestant church. Some, however, even 
of modern times, have declared their opinion that 
the question is not altogether settled, and that 
there remains something to be said upon the 
other side. In the English church the opinion 
of Semler has found many advocates, among 



WORKS OF GOD. 



229 



whom Hugo Farmer, the author of an Essay on 
Demoniacs, is distinguished. In the Romish 
church, the old doctrine that the so called de- 
moniacs of the New Testament were really pos- 
sessed of devils, and that these possessions were 
not confined to that particular age, remained the 
common and professed belief during the greatest 
part of the eighteenth century. But during the 
last few years, many of the theologians, even 
of this church, have come over to the opinions 
prevailing among protestants. The interest on 
this subject was revived in the protestant and 
catholic churches in Germany by the practices 
of the celebrated conjurers, Schropferand Gess- 
ner, who appeared in the latter half of the 
eighteenth century. As the difference of opi- 
nion was very great, (some protestant theolo- 
gians — e. g., Crusius and Lavater, maintaining 
not only that there might possibly be posses- 
sions and conjurations at the present day, but 
that such were sometimes actually known,) 
many works were written on both sides of the 
question. The result of this discussion in the 
minds of the more unprejudiced and moderate 
was, that although God, for particular reasons, 
and for the sake of certain ends, might formerly 
have permitted demoniacal possessions, there is 
no proof that there are any such at the present 
day; and there are no infallible signs by which 
these alleged possessions can be certainly distin- 
guished at the present day from diseases merely 
natural. 

III. Remarks on the Possessions recorded in the 
New Testament. 

1. The common opinion at the present time 
is, that all these disorders are to be explained by 
merely natural causes ; and that when Jesus and 
the apostles attributed them to the influence of 
evil spirits, they spoke in accommodation to the 
prevailing error of their contemporaries. The 
ancients, it is said, from their want of patholo- 
gical science, referred many diseases which were 
purely natural to demoniacal influence ; and this 
was the case with regard to the diseases men- 
tioned in the New Testament. Christ and his 
apostles did not appear in the character of theo- 
retic physicians, and were not required by their 
calling to give instruction concerning the true 
causes of human diseases. Such is the reason- 
ing often employed at the present day ; and in 
this way do some attempt to escape from diffi- 
culties, and to free Christ from the charge of 
entertaining the superstitious opinions of his 
countrymen ; but, as we shall see hereafter, they 
thus involve themselves in greater difficulties 
than they attempt to escape. The question re- 
specting the reality of the possessions recorded 
in the New Testament is at least open to dis- 
cussion, and cannot be decided in that authori- 



tative and peremptory tone which has of late 
sometimes been assumed. That demoniaca' 
possessions are impossible cannot be proved ; not 
can it be shewn from the fact of there being none 
at the present time that there never were any. A 
disease — e. g., epilepsy— which may be owing 
at one time to a natural cause, may at another 
be produced by the agency of an evil spirit; nor 
can the opposite of this be proved. It is also 
possible that Divine Providence may have suf- 
fered in a former period, for the attainment of 
particular ends, what it no longer permits now 
that those ends are obtained. Vide No. 3. 

2. There are, indeed, difficulties attending the 
doctrine of demoniacal possessions, and many 
things about it are dark and inexplicable ; but, 
great as these difficulties may be, those which 
follow from rejecting this doctrine are still 
greater. They who deny the reality of demoni- 
acal possessions will find it difficult either to 
maintain the authority of Christ as a teacher, 
especially as a divine teacher, and the highest 
ambassador from God to man, (which he always 
affirmed himself to be,) or even to vindicate his 
■moral character. This subject is commonly 
treated at the present day in altogether too par- 
tial a manner; and I regard it as the duty of the 
Christian theologian, arising especially from the 
wants of the age in which we live, boldly to re- 
sist all such partial views in matters of religion, 
not concerned as to the judgment which may be 
formed of him by the multitude, if he can but 
succeed in gaining the minds of the more candid 
and enlightened, which he may depend will, 
sooner or later, be found on the side of truth. 
In reference to this subject, two things are per- 
fectly undeniable — viz., (a) that Jesus himself 
spoke of these diseases as effects produced by 
evil spirits, and never gave the remotest occasion 
to suppose that he believed they were anything 
else, not even in his more confidential discourses 
with his disciples, nor in those cases in which 
he would have found it necessary to contradict 
the prevailing opinion, if it had been different 
from his own, Matthew, viii. 28 — 32; xvii. 19 — 
21 ; Luke, x. 17—21 ; Matt. xii. 28, 29. 

This being the case with Christ, it will not 
be thought strange, (b) that his apostles and 
other disciples should always have been of the 
same mind; and that the evangelists did regard 
these sick persons as true demoniacs is obvious 
at first sight, Cf. Matt. viii. 28, seq. If Christ 
and the apostles had regarded this opinion as 
erroneous they would not have hesitated to de- 
clare it so, even if their doing this had been at- 
tended with danger from the Jews; for where 
truth was concerned, they were not accustomed 
to be governed by regard to consequences. They 
could not, however, have had any reason to ap- 
prehend serious disadvantages from denying the 
U 



230 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



reality of demoniacal possessions ; for this was 
done by the entire sect of the Sadducees, among 
whom most of the rulers and great men in Pa- 
lestine were found, and who, although they 
went so far as to deny even the existence of good 
and evil spirits, were left to the undisturbed en- 
joyment of their belief. That accommodating 
policy which some have ascribed to Christ and 
the apostles can hardly be reconciled with the 
principles of that pure morality which they 
themselves taught, and according to which, in 
other cases similar to those now under consider- 
ation, they themselves unhesitatingly and inva- 
riably acted. 

The whole dispute may be summed up in the 
following points — viz., («) Those who consider 
Christ as merely a human teacher, and yet one 
who acted on the highest moral principles, must 
allow that he at least sincerely believed what he 
so often asserted ; and in no other way can his 
moral character be vindicated. Such persons 
might still doubt, notwithstanding the declara- 
tion of Christ, whether this doctrine is true, 
since they might suppose that he, like other 
human teachers, might err from the imperfection 
of his knowledge, and thus be the means of 
leading others astray, or of confirming them in 
their errors. (Z>) Bat those who regard Christ 
as an infallible divine, teacher, in the full and 
proper sense of the word, and as he is declared 
to be in the New Testament, must assent to his 
decision on this, as on every other subject, and 
they must have the courage to profess this, 
however many difficulties they may find in the 
way, and although philosophers and illuminati 
should array themselves in opposition, and 
scoffers should treat them with ridicule and 
contempt, (c) In order to avoid the pressure 
under which they feel themselves placed by the 
above-mentioned alternative, many will say, 
that while they would not deny that Jesus was 
an upright man, and a teacher worthy of esteem, 
they cannot yet receive him as a divine teacher, 
in such a sense as to require them to believe a 
doctrine like this on his mere authority. But if 
they will be consistent, they will bring them- 
selves in this way into great straits. For Jesus 
declared himself, on every occasion, and in the 
most decisive manner, to be an infallible divine 
teacher, whose words were true, and must be 
believed on his mere authority. Now if Christ 
was not such a teacher as he declared himself 
to be, the following dilemma arises; either 
Christ did not think himself such, although he 
expressly affirmed it, and then he forfeited his 
character for integrity; or he only imagined 
himself to be such, and then, though a good 
man, he must have been a weak and deluded 
enthusiast, and thus he forfeited the character 
which the New Testament gave him, and which 



he claimed for himself, of a sure and venerable 
teacher, upon whose guidance and instruction 
men might safely rely. Everything, therefore, 
depends upon the belief of the divine mission and 
authority of Christ ; and from this point, there- 
fore, which many would be glad to evade, the 
discussion must proceed. 

3. The following are the views and principles 
respecting demoniacal possessions, and the de- 
sign with which they were permitted, which are 
found, without intermixture of philosophy, an- 
cient or modern, in the New Testament, and 
which therefore should be laid before his hearers 
by the religious teacher, as far as they are capa- 
ble of being understood, {a) Satan and other 
evil spirits feel a hatred to men, which is mani- 
fested in various ways. Vide loc. cit. s. 64, II. 
(A) It was important that this hostility should 
be rendered very clear and obvious to men, and 
especially at the time of Christ, when a new era 
commenced, which needed to be strongly dis- 
tinguished, at its very introduction, from every 
other. For this reason, power was granted to 
evil spirits to possess the bodies of men, or to 
affect them with dreadful diseases — a power 
which they had not possessed before, and of 
which they have since been deprived. Vide 
Matt. xii. 23; Luke, xiii. 16, coll. v. 11, and x. 
17—20; John, xvi. 11 ; Acts, x. 38, seq. (c) 
But, on the other hand, power was granted to 
Jesus and his apostles to shew, in a manner 
equally clear and striking, by the cure of the 
diseases which demons inflicted, that the object 
of the coming of Christ was to destroy the power 
of evil spirits, to render their hostility to our race 
harmless, and to free all those who wished to 
be freed from the evils ascribed to demoniacal 
agency. Cf. loc. supra cit. and John, xvi. 11 ; 
1 John, iii. 8, and those cited s. 64. The per- 
mission of these possessions, therefore, secured 
an important moral end, which could not be as 
well secured in any other way, at that particu- 
lar age of the world, (d) In no other way could 
the great object for which Christ came into the 
world, and to which he so often alludes, be 
so strongly represented, or so deeply impressed, 
as by these facts falling under the cognizance 
of the senses. The mere teaching of this reli- 
gion, unaccompanied by any such facts, would 
have produced on hearers like his a feeble im- 
pression, compared with that made by those 
wonderful works which proved both the teacher 
and his doctrine to be divine. Facts produce 
always a greater effect upon men than abstract 
instruction; and hence God so frequently em- 
ploys them, as we see both from the Bible and 
from experience, in the instruction which he 
gives to men, at least makes use of them to ren- 
der the instruction he has otherwise imparted 
more impressive and certain. 



WORKS OF GOD. 



231 



SECTION LXVI. 

OF MAGIC AND SPECTRES. 

I. Of Magic. 

1. We shall here present some historical ob- 
servations on the subject of magic, and then 
some conclusions drawn from them ; for nothing- 
more is necessary for the refutation of magic 
than that it be exposed to the light of history. 
The existence of spiritual agents, either friendly 
or hostile to our race, is here presupposed ; and 
magic is founded on the belief of their influ- 
ence, and secret and invisible power. Wherever 
this secret, invisible power of superior spirits 
is granted to men, there is a foundation for 
magic, whatever may be the nature of the spirits 
by whom it is granted, whether they are gods, 
or angels, or demons, or of some other denomi- 
nation. The many erroneous conceptions of 
ignorant and uncultivated men with respect to 
the influence of these spirits, and the custom 
of ascribing to their agency everything which 
cannot be easily explained on natural princi- 
ples, — these, with other things, furnish a suf- 
ficient ground for the propensity to magic which 
is seen among so many persons, and in so many 
nations. This superstition has indeed appeared 
in different forms among different people ; but 
as they all proceed from the same general ideas, 
they bear a strong resemblance to each other, in 
all their diversities, and agree in the means 
which they prescribe to propitiate or appease 
these superior spirits, or to avert the threatened 
evil. Magic, in its largest sense, is the art of 
performing something which surpasses the na- 
tural powers of men, by the aid of superior spi- 
rits. And the less general cultivation one has, 
the less knowledge he possesses of the powers 
of nature and their effects, the more inclined 
will he be to magic, and to all kinds of super- 
stition which relate to the natural world. The 
question has sometimes been asked, In what na- 
tion was magic first practised ! and, Who was 
its first inventor or teacher? And in answer to 
these questions, the Chaldeans and Persians 
have been mentioned. Sine dubio, says Pliny 
(xxx. 1), orta in Perside a Zoroastre, ut inter 
auclores constat. But this inquiry is useless, 
since magic is practised by all savage nations, 
and they would be led to it naturally by the su- 
perstitious ideas above mentioned, and need not 
be supposed therefore to have derived it from 
other sources. Vide Tiedemann, De Magia; 
Marburg, 1787. 

When rude and uncultivated man wishes in 
any way to better his condition, or to accomplish 
what appears to him difficult or impossible, he 
resorts to magic, or the aid of spirits, (a) Those 
who wished to be rich, or prosperous, to live 
comfortably, to regain their own health, or to 



procure health for others, were accustomed to 
resort to supernatural assistance, to magic medi- 
cines, cures effected by incantation, alchymy, 
philtres, &c. The more mysterious, dark, and 
enigmatical the means prescribed by this art, the 
more welcome were they, and the more effica- 
cious were they believed to be. Even the ef- 
fects produced by the natural virtues of herbs, 
medicines, &c, were ascribed by some to the 
influence of spirits; hence Pliny says (xxx. 1), 
Natam primum (magiam) e medicina nemo du- 
bitat, ac specie salutari irrepsisse velut altiorem 
sanctioremque medicinam. (6) Those who 
wished secretly to injure others, or to be re- 
venged upon them, were wont to employ vari- 
ous herbs, roots, or formulas of speech, for the 
purpose of bewitching or enchanting the objects 
of their dislike ; and, on the other hand, resorted 
to amulets, charms, &c, when they wished to 
repel the injury to themselves from like prac- 
tices in others. Real injury has been done in 
magical practices by the use of actual poisons, 
though the operation even of these is ascribed 
by many to spirits. Hence, veneficium {^ap/xa- 
xslck) signifies both the mingling of poison and 
sorcery. So Pliny (xxx. 2), Habet (magia) 
quasdam veritatis umbras ; sed in his veneficise 
artes pollent, non magicx. (d) Those who 
wished to acquire the knowledge of things un- 
known to them, (e. g., who their enemies were, 
who stood in the way of their success, who had 
stolen their property, &c.,) or who wished to 
learn their future destiny, supposed that by con- 
sulting spirits they could best obtain the desired 
information. Pliny, in the passage above cited, 
says, "Nullo (homine) non avido futura de se 
sciendi, atque de ccelo verissime peti credente." 
Hence divination, dreams, and apparitions, have 
always been among the instruments of which 
the magician has availed himself. 

Among men entertaining the superstitious 
opinions here described, the supposed confidant 
of superior spirits would naturally command re- 
spect and influence. These magicians (for so 
those were called who were supposed to possess 
familiar spirits) were sometimes impostors, 
sometimes themselves deluded, sometimes both 
at once. The various practices to which they 
resorted in ancient and modern times may be 
easily explained from what has already been 
said. The most common are the following — 
viz., fascination by evil glances, by words, pray- 
ers, incantations, (carmina, formulas which 
were sung,) Eccl. x. 11 ; Ps. lviii. 5, 6; Horn. 
Odys. de Circe; Virgil, Eel. viii. 60, seq. ; 
Mr\. iv. 487, seq. Necromancy, the art of ob- 
taining the secrets of the future by conjuring 
up the dead ; Homer, Odys. xi., — a very com- 
mon practice in the East, and among the He- 
brews, who were addicted to idolatry. A male 
practitioner of this art among the Hebrews was 



232 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



called aw, and a female, (for it was practised by 
females,) aiN-flSga, a woman who has a spirit of 
necromancy ; in the plural, mttIN, sorceresses. Lev. 
xx. 27; Is. xxix. 4. Of this class was the 
witch of Endor, whom Saul consulted, 1 Sa- 
muel, xxviii. Cf. Is. viii. 19. Enchantment by 
magic herbs, ointments, medicines, and different 
means of exciting the feelings and passions. 

But the belief in the connexion between 
wicked men and evil spirits or malignant dei- 
ties, and the injury to others which wizards of 
this description could do with the assistance 
afforded them, has been more frightful in its 
consequences than any other. The magical 
practices of such men were called by the Ara- 
bians the black art, in distinction from what was 
done by those who had connexion with good 
spirits, which was called by them white magic, 
(magia alba.) This form of magic existed also 
among the Hebrews, who were addicted to 
idolatry ; for the Canaanites, and other heathen 
nations with whom they were connected, be- 
lieved in black deities, atri dii — i. e., harmful 
gods, the authors of mischief , not morally wicked, 
like the devils of the Jews after the captivity. 

So we find t^|, (from the Arab, i a*M>, obscu- 
ravit, eclipsi affecit Beus solem, and synonymous 

f ' ' 
with u-JUw^-, caliginavit oculos,) magic, black 

art; and *]tJ>30, a magician, practitioner of the 
black art. Nah. iii. 4; Deut. xviii. 10. Great 
mischief has been done by the professors of the 
black art, who, under pretence of magical prac- 
tices, have not unfrequently committed murder, 
or administered poison. Hence in many of the 
ancient languages, the practice of magic and the 
mingling of poison were denoted by the same 
word ; in Greek, by ^ap/xaxsta, in Latin, by ve- 
neficium, venefica ; hence, too, the operations of 
poison and of magic are confounded by savage 
people — e. g., by the African negroes. Vide 
Oldendorp's History of the Mission to the Ca- 
ribbean Islands, where the terrible consequences 
of the belief in magic among barbarous men are 
described. The practice of black magic was 
therefore forbidden by many of the ancient legis- 
lators, and especially by Moses, Ex. xxii., Lev. 
xx., Deut. xviii. The latter forbade the practice 
of it by the Jews, partly from its intimate con- 
nexion with idolatry, and partly from the injury 
done by magicians, as real murderers and poi- 
soners. Magic, however, remained in vogue 
among the Jews. Before the exile, they sup- 
posed the supernatural power of magicians was 
derived from the heathen idols; but after the 
exile, when they wholly renounced idolatry, 
they supposed that black magic was performed 
by the aid of evil angels. No traces of this opi- 
nion, however, are to be met with shortly after 
the exile; but the Jews at the time of Christ 



believed both in the connexion of men with good 
spirits and in their fellowship and alliance with 
devils; and of this the Pharisees accused even 
Jesus, Matt. xii. 24. 

2. The source of modem scientific magic 
which has prevailed so extensively even among 
the civilized nations of Asia and Europe, must 
be sought in the principles of the New Platonic 
philosophy, which first flourished in Eygpt. 
The enthusiastic adherents of this philosophy 
during the second and third centuries brought 
the ancient religion of the Greeks and the super- 
stitious opinions which prevailed among them 
into a scientific form, and gave them a learned 
aspect. Vide Meiner, Betrachtungen iiber die 
neuplatonische Philosophie ; Leipzig, 1782, 8vo. 
Eberhard, Ueber den Ursprung der wissen- 
schaftlichen Magie, in Num. 7 of his " Neuen 
vermischten Schriften ;" Halle, 1788. They 
gave out their own notions as purely Platonic, 
and in order to secure them a more favourable 
reception, invested them with the Platonic ideas 
respecting demons, purification of souls, union 
with the Deity, &c. The) 7 divided magic into 
two parts : — (a) Qiovpyia, ^forpycx^ ts%vvj, ma- 
gia alba — i. e., the art of gaining over good dei- 
ties or good demons, and of procuring their as- 
sistance and cooperation by means of appointed 
ceremonies, fasts, sacrifices, &c. This art was 
also called §saya>yla, Qtcayaplal) the art of en- 
listing the gods on one's side; §eo7tiia, x. t. %. 
{b) rorjtsLa (from yovjs, incantator, prasstigiaior,) 
prsestigise, magia atra, witchcraft, the art of se- 
curing the assistance of evil spirits. This divi- 
sion was made by Jamblicus, Proclus, Porphyry, 
and other New Platonists. 

When now the principles of the New Platonic 
philosophy became prevalent among Christian 
people, theurgy and witchcraft were adopted 
among other doctrines, though in a form some- 
what modified, and intermingled with Jewish 
and Christian ideas. Vide Lactantius, Institt. 
Div. ii. 14, 16. The spread of these opinions 
was also promoted by the enthusiastical writ- 
ings which were published in the fifth century 
under the assumed name of Dionysius Areopa- 
gita. It was the almost universal opinion of the 
ecclesiastical fathers that oracles, auguries, and 
the whole system of heathen divination, were 
to be ascribed to the devil, and were a product 
of this their so called yoyj-fela. Vide Lactan- 
tius, 1. 1. Van Dale, De Oraculis vett. ethni- 
corum ; Amsterdamiee, 1700. Among the Jews, 
some adopted the opinions above described, 
others adhered to their cabalistic dreams, and 
pretended to work wonders with words and, 
phrases taken from the Bible, with the name 
of God or angels, &c. ; all which ran into the 
theurgy just noticed. Among the Saracens, 
also, theurgy was very much practised ; and es- 
pecially in the twelfth century, they employed 



WORKS OF GOD. 



233 



themselves very zealously in searching for the 
philosopher's stone by the practices of white ma- 
gic; and transmitted their results to the Chris- 
tians both of Asia and Europe. It may be said 
in general of Jewish and Christian teachers, 
that while they condemned heathen theurgy, 
they did not do this on account of its being a 
superstitious practice, but because of the homage 
rendered by it to strange gods ; for the gods and 
demons of the heathen were regarded by Jews 
and Christians as devils or fallen angels. But 
while they condemned theurgy as involving 
this homage, they retained the art itself, unal- 
tered except in its name. During the middle 
ages, magic was indeed in many places ex- 
changed for astrology, in consequence of the in- 
troduction of the physics of Aristotle; still 
magic was not wholly exterminated, nor were 
the different kinds of it (^oupyta and yorjtsia) 
ever in more repute in the west than during the 
sixteenth and a part of the seventeenth centuries, 
shortly before and after the Reformation. The 
heads of theologians, civilians, and common 
people, were filled with the notion that there 
were in reality alliances between wicked men 
and wicked spirits, and not unfrequently, even 
in the protestant church, have persons been con- 
demned as wizards and witches. By degrees, 
however, the notions of some of the learned, 
especialty of the Cartesian school, became more 
clear on this subject; and in England and the 
Netherlands some ventured openly to avow 
their own opinions, and publicly to express 
their belief in the unreasonableness of the popu- 
lar superstitions. Among these writers, Becker 
was foremost. He was followed in England 
by Webster and others, and in protestant Ger- 
many by Christ. Thomasius, in his work 
^Theses de crimine magiae ;" Hala?, 1701 ; and 
in other works, in which he further developed 
the principles expressed in his Theses. His 
opinions excited at first great opposition, which, 
however, did not last long, so ashamed did the 
princes, theologians, and common people of the 
protestant church become of this superstition ; 
the trials of the witches were abandoned, and 
provision was made for the better instruction of 
the people and the enlightening of the public 
mind. But, after all, there is still in protestant 
countries a deep-rooted belief in magic, which 
is likely yet to continue. How many people 
of all classes, even in the midst of enlightened 
Germany, were deceived and led away by the 
conjurer Schropfer, and afterwards by Cagli- 
ostro ! And by how many secret societies has 
the belief in magic been industriously propa- 
gated among the high and the low! Besides 
the works of Becker, Thomasius, Semler, 
Tiedemann, Meiner, and Eberhard, which have 
been already cited, cf. Hauber, Bibliotheca Ma- 
gica, 3 torn. ; Lemgov. 1735 — 41, 8vo, where the 
30 



hurtfulness of these magical practices is shewn 
from authority and history. Hennings, Das 
Grab des Aberglaubens, 4 Samml. ; Frankfurt, 
1777, 8vo. Vide Noesselt's « Biicherkennt- 
niss." 

Note 1. — The act of producing unusual and 
striking effects by means of the known powers 
of nature, is called magia naturalis, because 
these effects, however marvellous and magical 
they may appear to the ignorant, are yet really 
produced by natural means. Such, for example, 
were many of the effects produced by the magi- 
cians of Egypt; Ex. vii. Vide Wiegleb, Na- 
turliche Magie; Berlin, 1779, 8vo; continued 
afterwards by Rosenthal. 

Note 2. — The philosophy of many secret or- 
ders, both in ancient and modern times, relies 
upon magic for the attainment of its object. It 
is built on the cabalistic theory, that man in his 
original perfection was a very different being 
from man in his present state; that he possess- 
ed even more natural powers than he now. does ; 
in short, that he w 7 as in the image of Adam Kad- 
mon, the original god-man, the first and purest 
effluence of all the divine powers and attributes ; 
that he was immortal, the friend of superior spi- 
rits, lord of the invisible world, and master of 
secret sciences and arts. To restore human na- 
ture to this its original perfection was the object 
of philosophy; and the mysterious means by 
which this end could be accomplished, (the phi- 
losopher's stone,) were supposed to have been 
communicated to Adam by superior spirits, and 
transmitted by tradition, hieroglyphics, and va- 
rious secret writings, through Seth, Enoch, 
Noah, Moses, Solomon, Hermes Trismegistus, 
Zoroaster, Orpheus, and others of the initiated. 
This order was accessible to men of all reli 
gions, and among its members we find the Ara- 
bians Adfar and Avienna, Artesius, Raymund, 
Lullus, Nic. Flamel, and Basil. Valentine. 
This mystery was brought from the East into 
Europe by Christ. Rosenkreutz, who lived in the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was call 
ed the philosopher's stone, though it comprehend- 
ed more than mere alchymy, or the art of enno 
bling metals, and the secret of preserving life 
a thousand years. This mystery had for its 
higher object the entire elevation of man, bodily 
and spiritually; and this object it sought to ef- 
fect by means of magic, or a mysterious con- 
nexion with good spirits. In comparison with 
this object, the mere making of gold was regard- 
ed as a very petty achievement by these adepts, 
and was so insignificant in their view, as many 
of them assure us, that rather than employ them- 
selves about it they would always remain poor. 

II. Of Spectres. 
A belief in spectres was formerly, and is still, 
almost universal, and this, because it results 
u2 



234 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



immediately from certain feelings and ideas 
tfhich are widely diffused among men. Spec- 
Ires are called by the Greeks, siSut'ka, apparitions, 
visions, forms which can be seen, shadow-shapes ,• 
.also tydtfpata (from tyalva) and ^avtaa/xa-ea 
(from ^avtd^u,) phantoms, phantasms. Vide 
Mark, vi. 49. They are called by the Latins 
spectra, (from the obsolete specio, cerno ,•) also 
monstra. 

What are spectres? According to the concep- 
tions of the Greeks, Latins, Hebrews, Oriental- 
ists, and indeed of most nations, they are the 
souls of the departed, returned again to the earth, 
and rendered visible to men. The nations now 
mentioned, and others less cultivated than these, 
supposed, indeed, that departed souls (the ghosts 
or manes of the dead) immediately after death 
wandered down to Hades (SiNiy), (vide Homer, 
and Isaiah, xiv. ;) and that they had definite 
places appointed them there, secluded from the 
upper world, to which they were not allowed to 
return. in ordinary cases. Vide 2 Sam. xii. 23 ; 
Job, vii. 9, 10 ; Luke, xvi. 22, 23 ; Isa. xxxviii. 
10, seq. But as the living sometimes saw the 
deceased in their dreams, and as an excited 
imagination often depicted before their waking 
eyes the image of some departed friend, so that 
they seemed to themselves to see and to hear 
him, they naturally fell into the belief that the 
shades sometimes ascend from Hades, and be- 
come visible to men, or in some other w T ay 
(perhaps by knocking) give signals of their 
presence. In conformity with these concep- 
tions, the rich man in Hades is said in the pa- 
rable to pray that one of the dead might be sent to 
his father's house, Luke, xvi. 27, 30. These 
ghosts in Hades were represented as beings 
possessing fine, aerial bodies, in which, though 
they were far less gross and palpable than the 
flesh and bones of our earthly bodies, they yet 
sometimes rendered themselves visible to men. 
Vide s. 59, II., s. 150. Traces of this opinion 
are found among the Jews, and also among the 
Latins and Greeks; thus Homer speaks of j3po- 
tZiv slScoha xa t u6ptK>v, and says of them, 

Oi yap tni capKas te koI oarza Ives Ixovaiv. 

Cf. Luke, xxiv. 39, rcvsvfia adpxa xai oatha ovx 
e%sc. Vide texts from various writers cited by 
Wetstein in his Com. on Luke, xxiv. 37. From 
these prevailing conceptions, the passages, 
Luke, xxiv. 37, and Mark, vi. 49, 50, may be 
explained, and upon the existence of such su- 
perstitions the delusions of the ancient necro- 
mancers were founded — e. g., of the witch of 
Endor, 1 Samuel, xxviii. 7, seq. It was with 
these notions in his mind that Thomas took the 
appearance of Jesus to be the apparition of a 
departed spirit in a shadowy body, (sl8co%ov,) 
and was unwilling to believe that he had ap- 
peared to the other disciples in the true body 



which he had upon the earth, John, xx. 25. 
John relates (chap, xxi.) that Jesus ate with his 
disciples after his resurrection, in order, it would 
seem, to discountenance the idea that he appear- 
ed only with the airy body of a spectre. The 
common opinion on this subject was adopted by 
Plato in his Phaedon, and was afterwards fur- 
ther developed and remodelled to suit themselves 
by the new Platonists. Vide Scripta Varii ar- 
gument^ Num. iii., Progr. super origine opini- 
onis de immortalitate animorum; Hallas, 1790. 
It was also adopted by many of the early Chris- 
tian teachers; it is found in the writings of the 
Greek and Latin fathers ; and was turned to 
good account by the Romanists in their doctrine 
of purgatory. 

It would naturally occur to the minds of Jews 
and Christians that the devil, and the demons 
in subjection to him, might have some hand in 
these apparitions. Some accordingly maintained 
that it was the devil who, for various sinister 
purposes, occasioned the return and appearance 
of departed spirits ; while others asserted that 
spectres were only illusions practised on us by 
Satan, that the ghosts of the departed never ap- 
peared, and that there were no other than devil- 
ish spectres. Of this opinion were many of the 
philosophers and theologians of the protestant 
church, in opposition to those of the Romish. 
Nor have there been wanting those who have 
attempted to explain ghostly appearances from 
| physical causes. Cardanus and Jul. Cses. Ba- 
! nini contended that spectres were exhalations 
: from the wasting corpse, which, becoming con- 
! densed during the more damp and silent air of 
! the night, assumed at length the external form of 
the deceased. Of the philosophers who divided 
man into three parts — body, soul, and spirit, (s. 
I 51, I.,) some have supposed that it is the spirit 
only which after death appears as a spectre. 
This was the opinion of Paracelsus, in the six- 
teenth century, and in this he was followed by 
many theosophists and astrologers. He called 
this spectral spirit astral, because he supposed 
that it was composed of the two upper elements, 
air and fire, and was therefore longer in dissolv- 
ing after death than the material body, and 
could float about in the atmosphere. He was 
followed in this by Jacob Boehmen, and also 
by Rob. Fludd, and others of the ancient Rose- 
crucians. 

But these philosophers would have been bet- 
ter employed in inquiring, in the first place, 
whether the stories of ghostly appearances 
which they undertook to explain were real and 
well-established facts. This inquiry, however, 
they rarely made, and usually took for granted 
the truth of what they had heard on this subject. 
But if we examine impartially the various 
ghost-stories which are told, we shall be brought 
to the conclusion that spectres are not, for the 



WORKS OF GOD. 



235 



most part, real beings, but creatures of the ima- 
gination, which often exercises so irresistible a 
control over men, that they think they perceive 
with their external senses what has no exist- 
ence, or at least exists in an entirely different 
way from that in which it appears to them. 
And in these cases fear and terror usually pre- 
vent all further investigation. Besides, there 
are some persons who are mischievous and 
thoughtless enough to work upon the fear and 
credulity of others, and who, merely for their 
own interest or amusement, will terrify them 
with frightful appearances. Again ; the super- 
stitious notions which are contracted by many 
in early life become so deeply and firmly rooted 
in their minds, that often they cannot be eradi- 
cated during their whole lives ; and this fur- 
nishes a psychological explanation of the fact, 
that even those philosophers who believe in no- 
thing of the kind are often not less agitated than 
others with the superstitious fear of ghosts. 
Still, however, no considerate and sober philo- 
sopher would allow himself to decide positively 
that spectres are in all cases unreal ; for no one 
can presume to maintain that the appearance of 
disembodied spirits among the living is wholly 
impossible, and can never take place. In addi- 
tion to the works cited s. 65, 66, cf. Hennings, 
Von Ahndungen und Visionen ; Leipzig, 1782, 
8vo ; also his work, " Von Geistern und Geister- 
sehern;" Leipzig, 1780, 8vo. Jung, Geister- 
kunde; Nurnberg, 1808, 8vo, — an attempt to 
furnish a scriptural answer to the question, 
How far we are to believe in presentiments, 
visions, dreams, apparitions, &c. ; containing, 
however, nothing very satisfactory, though 
written with the best intentions. 



ARTICLE VIII. 

OF THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE 
PROVIDENCE. 



SECTION LXVII. 

WHAT IS MEANT BV THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD; 
AND HISTORICAL REMARKS RESPECTING THIS 
DOCTRINE. 

I. Definition of Providence. 

Providence, defined as to its inherent nature, 
is the power which God exerts without interrup- 
tion in and upon all the works of his hands. The 
•elation in which all things stand to God, and 
.he influences which he exerts upon them, are 
always represented in the Bible as depending 
upon the creation. As the creator of all things, 
God possesses the power and the right to use 
them according to his own pleasure; and to 



cause them, and all which is done by them, to 
promote his own designs. Hence the provi- 
dence of God is justly denominated by the 
schoolmen the second creation. Vide s. 46. 
But, defined as to its external effect, and as far 
as it is visible to the eyes of men, providence 
may be said to be the government and preserva- 
tion of all things ; or the constant care and over- 
sight of God for all his works ; and this defini- 
tion, which is the one that Morus gives, is the 
most easy and intelligible. Cf. Morus, p. 76, 
s. 1,2." 

Note 1. — The word providence (Germ, vorse- 
hung) is derived from the Latin providentia, and 
this from the Greek itpovoia, which, however, 
is not found in any of the canonical books, 
though it occurs in the Book of Wisdom, xiv. 
3 ; xvii. 2. The words rtpovodv and providers 
properly signify to foresee, futura prospicere; 
and rtpovoLa, and providentia, accordingly signify 
foresight. But provider e not only signifies to 
foresee, but also to exercise forecast, prsecavere, 
and thus, in a general sense, to watch over, io 
care for, curare, procur are. In this sense it is 
employed by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. ii. 65,) Non 
universo generi hominum solum, sed etiam sin- 
gulis a dels consuli et provideri solet. Corres- 
ponding with provider e are the following He- 
brew verbs — viz., jn% nsn, and the other verba 
videndi et adspiciendi, as to^an, Psalm xxxiii. 13, 
(cf. ifyopqv, Homer, Od. xiii. 214 ; dpqv, II. xxiv. 
291; and the phrase, Deus contemplans maria 
et terras, Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 20;) -o? ij?s, 
Psa. viii. 5, (cf. axouvaouai, II. xxiv. 428 ;) 
uBTi, □"js, Nfc\j, Num. vi. 20 ; isi ; and also the 
following Greek verbs — viz., fypovzlv, (ii%%uv, 
(1 Pet. v. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 9,) iHtaxi7ttsa^ai, d8s- 
vch, irttyivuxixsiv. Corresponding with provi- 
dentia are the following Hebrew substantives — 
viz., Tivi, jode?d, nxy, m'nstiD, rr©ip, mrn "O^, i:i ; 
and the following Greek substantives — viz., 
xpifxata, 68oi, 8ia7MyLS t uol, x. t. %. 

Note 2. — The doctrine of divine providence 
is of the very first importance, and contributes 
greatly to the peace and happiness of human life. 
Were it not that God maintained a constant and 
watchful care over his works, all piety would 
immediately cease. A god w ? ho did not concern 
himself in the affairs of the world, and especially 
in the actions of men, would be to usjas good 
as none at all. In that case, should men live in 
a virtuous and pious manner, they w r ould have no 
approbation to expect from him ; should they be 
guilty of crimes, they would have no punishment 
to fear; were they persecuted, they could think 
of God only as the idle witness of their wrongs ; 
were they in circumstances of suffering and sor- 
row, they could find no consolation, if God were 
unmindful of them. But if, on the other hand, 
I am entitled to believe, that even in times of 
the greatest adversity God careth for me as a 



23t? 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



father, and will overrule all events for my great- 
est good, I may then be composed and unshaken, 
and may rise above depression and despair. 

II. History of Opinions respecting this Doctrine. 

1. Rude and uncultivated nations have at first 
no idea of the world as a whole ; they do not 
once think of its origin, of its internal con- 
nexion, or of the government which is exercised 
over it. Vide sec. 45, Nos. 1, 2. And when 
by degrees they have attained to the thought 
that everything which exists must have a cause, 
they unconsciously adopt the notion, that chance 
or necessity is the cause of all things ; and with 
this vague and indefinite notion remain for a 
long time satisfied. Vide Meiners, Historia 
doctrinee de Deo vero, p. 1. Respecting the re- 
lation which exists between God and the world ; 
respecting his power, and the influence which 
he exerts upon the works of his hands, the con- 
ceptions of people in the first stages of improve- 
ment were of course very confined and imper- 
fect. Vide s. 46, II. They represented the 
Deity to their minds as resembling themselves 
as closely as possible; they compared him to 
earthly princes and rulers, possessing, like them, 
though in a higher degree, power and influence ; 
they considered him therefore as a being whose 
protection was to be sought, and whose anger 
was to be dreaded ; but at the same time they 
ascribed to him many human weaknesses and 
imperfections. Of many of his attributes they 
appear to have had very elevated and worthy 
conceptions; and especially of his power, as is 
evident from the representation of Homer, Zeis 
Svvatai, a7iavTfa' and yet even of this attribute 
their views were in some respects defective. 
For as an earthly monarch, though possessed 
of the greatest power, and of the best will, is 
sometimes prevented from acting in the manner 
which he approves and desires, by the occur- 
rence of some unforeseen events, or by the con- 
trol of necessity ; even so, they supposed, was 
God himself, though possessed of a vastly supe- 
rior power, and acting in a sphere of vastly 
greater extent, yet equally liable to be hindered 
by contingent events, and equally subject to 
that irresistible necessity (fatum, fiolpa), by 
which gods and men were alike controlled. 
And not only in the respect above mentioned 
was God supposed to resemble human rulers, 
but also in matters of mere propriety ,- and as it 
was reputed inconsistent with the dignity of a 
•uler to concern himself in all the petty affairs 
rf his subjects, so it was supposed, a minute 
Inspection and particular care over all his works 
would be inconsistent with the majesty of God. 
Such were the popular notions respecting the 
deities which preva.^ed among the ancient 
Greeks, and which are expressed in Homer, 
Hesiod, Pindar, and other early Grecian poets. 



On the one hand, their conceptions of the pro- 
vidence of God, and his government over the 
world, were very just and elevated ; they consi- 
dered all events as depending upon his will ; 



dXX' 



nroi jxiv ravra cewv ev yovvaoi KEirai, 



II. xx. 435, and represented him as the witness 
and judge of the conduct of men ; 

Zsus oipeias rt<rat$' iKtrfiaiog, oare Kal aXXov; 
dv$pa>TTOvs tyopa, /cat rivvrai, Sons ctjiapr^, 

Od. xiii. 213. But, on the other hand, these 
conceptions were mingled with others, which 
appear to us extremely unworthy, and inconsist- 
ent with the divine character. 

Among the ancient nations, the Chaldeans 
were distinguished by their belief in the doctrine 
of fate, which they associated with their astro- 
logy ; hence the mmefatum Chaldaicum, or as- 
irologicum; though this doctrine was by no 
means confined to them. Among the Greeks, 
the philosophers made the popular notions re- 
specting the Deity the basis of their philoso- 
phical reasonings. From the belief which was 
almost universally entertained of two original 
and eternal principles — God and matter, neither 
of which was the author of the other (vide s. 
46, II.), their views respecting the agency of 
God in the material world, and of his power 
over it, and consequently respecting his provi- 
dence, must have been extremely defective and 
erroneous. The first among the Grecian philo- 
sophers who advocated the doctrine of fate, from 
whose control not even the Deity was excepted, 
was Heraclitus. It was afterwards defended by 
Parmenides, Democritus, and others; and even 
by Aristotle, if the testimony of Cicero (De 
Fato, c. 17) is to be received, which is somewhat 
doubtful. But as this doctrine invol vedinadequate 
conceptions of divine providence, and infringed 
upon the freedom of God and of other rational 
beings, it was remodelled by Plato, and so ex- 
plained by him as to be more easily reconciled 
with other established truths; though he does 
not always adhere to his own principles. The 
stoics are known as strict fatalists, though the 
precise sense in which they held this doctrine 
is a subject of dispute among the learned. Lip- 
sius maintained that the fate of the stoics was 
nothing more than the so called rationalfate — 
i. e., the order established by God, in the exer- 
cise of his freedom and wisdom, according to 
which certain events must necessarily take 
place. In the stoical fate, however, there 
was always involved a physical necessity, al- 
though they represented it as a predetermina- 
tion which did not exclude the freedom of the 
will, and which, while it secured the certainty of 
particular events, did not make them necessary. 
This is indeed contradictory; but it did not ap- 
pear so to them. Vide Tiedemann, System der 



WORKS OF GOD. 



237 



stoischen Philosophic, th. ii. s. 129 — 142 ; Leip- 
zig, 1776, 8vo. According - to the doctrine of 
Epicurus, the Deity was wholly removed from 
the world. In his system, as it is represented 
by Diogenes, Laertius, and Seneca, the notion 
of providence is absolutely denied. He supposed 
that the peace of the blessed gods would be in- 
terrupted by the labours and cares incident to 
the government of the world. 

2. This doctrine of an inevitable necessity 
being found inconsistent with the scriptural re- 
presentations of the providence of God, and be- 
ing also liable to the greatest objections on philo- 
sophical grounds, has been justly abandoned and 
rejected by Christian philosophers and theolo- 
gians. But in determining the manner in which 
God governs the world, they have shewn a great 
discrepancy in their opinions, and on account of 
the bearing of this question on that concerning 
the origin and causes of sin, have made it the 
subject of great controversy. They may be 
ranked, according to the systems which they 
have adopted, in three classes, each of which 
has its representatives even among the ancient 
schoolmen. 

{a) The Occasionalists, who adopted the sys- 
tem of occasional causes (sy sterna causarum oc- 
casionalium), occasionalism. They maintained 
that God is the immediate cause of the actions 
of his creatures, and that they only furnish him 
an occasion for what he does, and accordingly 
are only passive instruments by which he abso- 
lutely and irresistibly accomplishes his own 
designs. According to this system, what are 
elsewhere called second causes are only occasiones 
agendi. They are also called Prsedcterminantes, 
because they supposed a prsedeterminatio, or 
prsemotio physica. Of this class were many of 
the schoolmen, particularly the Thomists and 
Dominicans, among whom Gabriel Biel distin- 
guished himself as- an advocate of this theory, 
in the fifteenth century. The same notion re- 
specting the manner of God's agency in the 
world was adopted in the seventeenth century, 
by many of the disciples of Des Cartes ; and 
indeed his principles necessarily involved it. 
Among theologians, the disciples of Cocceius, 
and some Arminians, were the advocates of this 
system. Its most zealous and acute defenders, 
however, were Malebranche and Bayle, though 
the latter dissented in many particulars from the 
former. The names of Twiss, Maccov, and 
Turretin, deserve to be mentioned in this class. 
In the Romish church, the Dominicans still con- 
tinue the advocates of this theory. With regard 
to this theory it must be said, that it is hard to 
see its consistency with the freedom of the 
human will; nor, indeed, is its inconsistency 
denied by Bayle. Man is thus subjected to ne- 
cessity ; his good and bad actions are not im- 
putable to him, but to God, who acts through 



him, as a mere instrument. But the law of ne- 
cessity, when applied to moral beings, or w ithin 
the world of spirits, is extended beyond its 
proper sphere, which is the material world. 
This theory, therefore, which involves a neces- 
sity of acting, is utterly inapplicable to moral 
beings, whose highest law of acting is freedom. 
[Respecting the system of occasional causes, 
the student may consult Hahn, Lehrbuch des 
christlichen Glaubens, s. 73, s. 316, 320. Bret- 
schneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik, b. i. s. 93, s. 
610. Tennemann, Grundriss der Gesch. der 
Philos. s. 373, 378.— Tr.] 

(b) Perceiving that this theory was untenable, 
and injurious in its influence on morality, some 
adopted one exactly opposite, and maintained 
that the creatures of God acted immediately in 
and through themselves, in the exercise of the 
powers with which they had been once endowed 
by the Creator, and independently of his assist- 
ance. They compared the movements and al- 
terations which appear in the creation to those 
of a machine, (e. g., of a clock,) which, being 
once made and wound up, goes for a time of 
itself, without the further assistance of the artist, 
and when he is no longer present. This theory 
is called the system of mechanism, and was 
proposed by Durandus, in the fourteenth cen 
tury, and by other schoolmen. Its first advocaU 
was Scotus, and it has been adopted by mam 
of the modern mechanical philosophers, ant- 
even by Richard Baxter. Some have madf 
use of Bonnet's System of development, in or 
der to confirm and complete this theory. Bu 
this theory, as well as the one to which it is 
opposed, is liable to great objections. It ex 
hibits God in a light which is inconsistent 
with his perfections. It represents him as an 
artist who leaves his work, when he has com- 
pleted it, or idly beholds its operations. Nor 
does this theory, less than the former, impinge 
upon the doctrine of freedom and accountability. 
If it is consistently carried through, it removes 
many of the most important motives which 
ethics or religion can furnish ; for practical uses, 
therefore, it is wholly unfit. Vide Jerusalem, 
Betrachtungen, th. i. s. 114. Also the writings 
of Kant, which contain many profound discus- 
sions on this subject. [Cf. De la Mettrie, 
L'Homme machine, 1748, 4to. Coleridge, Aids 
to Reflection, p. 243, Amer. Edition. — Tr.] 

(c) In consequence of the difficulties and ob- 
vious errors attending the theories above men- 
tioned, many of the schoolmen were led to adopt 
a scheme which is intermediate between these 
opposite extremes. They maintained that God 
has indeed endowed his creatures with active 
powers ; but that still his own concurrent aid 
(concursus) is essential to their exercise ; since 
without it neither the thing itself which is sup- 
posed to act, nor its power of action, could for a 



238 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



moment subsist ; so that, in all the actions of his 
creatures, there is a joint, concurrent agency of 
God. By this theory, most of the difficulties 
attending this subject are obviated ; it is also 
found to be the most accordant with the repre- 
sentations of the Bible, and to commend itself 
more than any other to sound reason. It has 
therefore been justly adopted, though with vari- 
ous modifications, by most of the modern philo- 
sophers and theologians. In the sequel of this 
Article it will be more fully developed. [Cf. 
Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 92, s. 605.] 

But after all that has been thought and writ- 
ten upon this subject, it still remains encom- 
passed with difficulties ; and this, for the reason 
that it is impossible for men to form any distinct 
conceptions respecting the proper, internal man- 
ner of the divine agency. In order to represent 
it to our minds, we must liken it to the manner 
in which men act; and thus our whole know- 
ledge of the subject is, from the necessity of the 
case, symbolical, and greatly deficient. From 
this historical sketch, however, and especially 
from No. 1, one thing is clear — viz., that the 
simple theory respecting the providence of God, 
which is now almost universally received as 
true, owes its origin neither to heathen mytho- 
logy or philosophy, but to the Bible, where it 
was exhibited before it ever entered the mind 
of any philosopher. Vide Staiidlin, Materialien 
zu einer Geschichte der Lehre von Gottes 
Fursehung, in his " Magazin fur Religions- 
geschichte," b. iii. St. 1, s. 234, fF; Hanover, 
1804, 8vo. 

SECTION LXVII. 

OF THE PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PROVI- 
DENCE ; AND OF THE DIVISIONS UNDER WHICH 
IT HAS BEEN TREATED. 

I. Proof of this Doctrine. 

1. Proof from reason. This proof depends 
upon the truth of the position that the world is 
not self-existent, but was created by God ; and 
this proposition is proved by the same argu- 
ments by which the divine existence is proved. 
Vide s. 15, 46. Presuming that this position 
may now be considered as fully established, we 
derive proof of the providence of God from two 
sources — viz., from his own nature, and from 
that of his works. 

(a) From the nature and attributes of God. 
That God is not only able, but willing to take 
care of all his creatures, is demonstrable from 
the idea of the most perfect being; cf. s. 15. 
That he is able to do this, appears from his om- 
niscience, by which he knows the circumstances 
and wants of all his creatures ; from his wis- 
sh->n, by which he understands in what manner 
and by what means the world may be sustained 



and governed ; and from his omnipotence, by 
which he can accomplish everything which he 
desires. That he is willing to do this, follows 
alike from his wisdom and his goodness. Vide s. 
24, 28. If it is the design of God to advance 
his creatures to that degree of perfection and 
well-being of which they are susceptible, it 
must also be his will to watch over them, and 
to exercise towards them his providential care, 
to sustain them, and to promote their welfare 
by means which his wisdom approves as best. 
And his willing to do this is his actually doing 
it; for to suppose God to will anything, the 
attainment of which depends upon his abso- 
lute power, which yet he does not execute, 
would be to ascribe to him weakness and im- 
perfection. This metaphysical proof, however, 
when stated in its full extent, is not sufficiently 
intelligible to be used in popular instruction. 

(b) From the nature of created things. For 
it is obvious that the creatures of God are no 
more able to perpetuate their being than they 
were to contribute at first to their own existence. 
To sustain and perpetuate existence requires no 
less power than to create. Besides, the wise, 
orderly, and harmonious movement of all created 
things, in conformity with the plan on which 
they were adjusted, and for the promotion of the 
ends for which they were made, which is every- 
where visible in the universe, sufficiently evinces 
the care and government of an all-wise and al- 
mighty being. Cf. s. 69. To this it is object- 
ed that God might have so made the world that 
it would preserve itself, and stand in no need 
of the providence of its author; but from this 
objection the system of mechanism (noticed s 
67, II. b) immediately results; and this system, 
as was remarked, excludes moral freedom, and 
subjects everything to the law of necessity. 
Cf. s. 26. 

[Note. — Besides these proofs of the provi- 
dence of God, the theologians of the school of 
Kant have proposed another, similar to that of 
the divine existence, Art. ii. s. 15, II. It is 
briefly this : we cannot recognise the law of 
duty written upon our hearts as a divine com- 
mand, unless we believe that there is a moral 
government which will, in the end, make the 
happiness which, as sensitive beings, we natu- 
rally desire, proportionate to the morality of our 
actions; we cannot derive the strength which 
is necessary to a course of undeviating virtue 
amidst the temptations to which we are ex- 
posed, from anything but a faith in a holy go- 
vernor of the world, and disposer of the destinies 
of men. And hence — viz., from the necessity 
of believing in providence in order to virtuous 
moral action — they argue the truth of this doc- 
trine, and call it a postulate of our practical rea- 
son. There is still another proof which deserves 
a distinct mention— viz., that which may be de- 



WORKS OF GOD. 



239 



rived from the great historic events which have 
taken place in the world, — the giving and trans- 
mission of a divine revelation — the founding of 
religious institutes, as the Mosaic and the Chris- 
tian — the raising up of prophets, apostles, and 
defenders of the faith — the ordering of particu- 
lar events, such as the Reformation — the more 
remarkable deliverances noticed in the lives of 
those devoted to the good of the world, &c. — 
all of which indicate, the wise and benevolent 
care of God over the human family, and toge- 
ther constitute what may be called the historic 
proof of the providence of God. This proof is 
exhibited in an interesting manner in the scrip- 
ture biography of Hess, in Niemeyer's Charac- 
teristics of the Bible, and works of a similar 
kind.— Tr.] 

2. From the holy scriptures. Cf. Morus, p. 
76, seq. s. 3. Many of the texts which might 
be cited will be omitted here, and introduced in 
their more appropriate places in the sections 
which follow. Of the texts which treat of the 
general subject of providence more at large, and 
which exhibit many of the truths connected with 
this doctrine, the following are the most import- 
ant: — Ps. viii. xix. xc. (s. 20, III.) xci. civ. 
(vide Article on the Creation,) and cxxxix. 
(s. 22, I. ;) in the New Testament, Matt. vi. 
25—32; x. 29—31 ; Acts, xvii. 24—28. 

In the texts above cited we are taught the 
following truths: — (a) The preservation of the 
existence of all things depends on God alone. 
(b) God is the ruler and proprietor of the uni- 
verse, his title in it being founded in his having 
created it, (c) The state and circumstances of 
all created things are determined by God ; he 
needs nothing; but his creatures receive from 
him the supply of all their wants, (c?) No- 
thing is so insignificant as to be unworthy of 
his notice ; his providence extends even to the 
smallest objects, (e) Through his watchful 
care all his creatures, in their several kinds, en- 
joy as much good as from their nature they are 
susceptible of. (/) But his providence is most 
conspicuous in reference to the human race, 
both as a whole and as composed of individual 
men. He preserves their lives, provides them 
with food, clothing, and everything which they 
need. Their actions and their destinies are un- 
der his guidance and at his disposal ; and their 
race is preserved from generation to generation 
through his care. The whole is comprised in 
the words of Paul, Acts, xvii. 28, iv air? gupev 
xai xivovfiz^a xai icixiv. 

These scriptural representations have many 
practical uses. They furnish us with the means 
of forming just notions of God, and with mo- 
tives to induce us to reverence and serve him, 
Acts, xvii. 27. These considerations are cal- 
culated to inspire our minds with confidence in 
God, and to teacli us to regard him as a kind 



and benevolent father. Cf. the texts cited from 
Matthew, and Is. xl., ad finem. Indeed, the 
whole object and tendency of this doctrine, as 
exhibited in the sacred writings, is to excite 
and cherish pious dispositions in our minds 
It leads us to think, with regard to every passing 
event, that God knows it,- to feel that it is ex- 
actly as he willed it, and in it to see his agency. 
If we were duly influenced by what we are 
taught in the Bible of the providence of God, 
we should do all our works under a sense of his 
presence, ivurttov -tov ®eov, and our constant 
maxim would be ov&sv avtv ®sov. Vide Matt. 
x. 29, &c. Morus, p. 76, s. 3, p. 78, Note. 
Such exalted and worthy conceptions of the 
providence of God as these, which occur every- 
where in the Bible, and which must accord with 
the judgment and the feelings of every one who 
is not wholly perverted, may be sought in vain 
in the writings of the ancient philosophers, who 
were unacquainted with the Bible. And it is 
to the Bible alone that modern philosophers are 
indebted for the more correct principles which 
they inculcate upon this subject. 

Note. — The work of providence and preserva- 
tion is usually ascribed in the Bible to the 
Father, as is also the work of creation ; and it is 
principally as the creator and preserver of the 
world that he is called Father. Vide s. 36. 
There are, however, some texts in the New 
Testament, in which both the creation and pre- 
servation of the world are ascribed to the Son — 
e. g., Heb. i. 3, <|>Epcoi> rtdvta ^fia-tL bwd/xecoi 
av-tov, and Col. i. 17, 4u rtdvta h avTq cwiat^xs, 
both of which have already been examined in 
the article respecting the creation, s. 47, II. 2. 

II. Scholastic Divisions. 

1. The providence of God is divided, in rela- 
tion to its objects, into general (generalis), so far 
as it extends to all existing things; special, 
(specialis), so far as it relates to moral beings — 
to men and human affairs; and particular (spe- 
cialissima), so far as it extends to the moral 
beings, who fulfil the ends of their existence — 
the pious and virtuous. Vide Morus, p. 78, 
s. 4. Strictly speaking, however, God cannot 
be said to care more or less for one class of his 
creatures than for another. His providence, in 
itself considered, is the same for all; but all 
have not an equal capacity to receive the proofs 
and benevolent expressions of his care : an irra- 
tional creature is not susceptible of the same 
kind and degree of perfection and welfare as a 
rational being; nor a vicious, as a virtuous 
man. Hence it seems to us as if God had more 
care for the animate than for the inanimate crea- 
tion; for men, than for beasts; for the pious, 
than for the wicked ; though the real ground of 
the difference in their condition lies in their own 
greater or less capacity for the divine favour. 



240 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Now the universe, so far as we know, consists 
of the three classes — inanimate things, crea- 
tures endowed with life and activity but pos- 
sessing no rational and moral powers, and mo- 
ral beings. The latter are by far the most ex- 
alted and noble, the nearest related, so to speak, 
to their author, and those in whom his designs 
mostly terminate. They are not placed, like 
the lower orders of being, under the law of ne- 
cessity, and treated like machines ; which would 
be inconsistent with the free nature which has 
been given them. The highest aim which God 
can be supposed to have had in view in the 
creation and government of the world, is a 
moral end; and to subserve this end, to which 
all others are subordinate, he governs not only 
the moral kingdom, but the whole material and 
animal creation. 

2. The particular manner in which God pre- 
serves and governs the world can no more be 
understood by us than the manner in which he 
first created it. Vide s. 46. But in order to 
obtain some definite conceptions of this subject, 
we compare the operations of God to those of 
men; though in doing this there is danger of 
ascribing to God the imperfections which belong 
only to man. Now when men exercise care 
over anything, there are two things which may 
be considered — the care itself, as exercised by 
them, and the effect or result of it. 

(a) The care itself, (actio interna.') Since a 
man, when he exercises care over others, must 
have the knowledge of what they need, and un- 
derstand the means by which their wants can 
be supplied ; must then come to a determination 
to make use of the means approved as proper; 
and lastly, must carry his determination into 
effect; so it was supposed to be with God, in 
the care which he exercises over the world ; and 
this gave rise to the scholastic division of the 
providence of God into three acts — viz., rfpo- 
yvofft-S (praescientia), the knowledge of God of 
the wants of his creatures, and of the best 
means of supplying them ; rtpo&ats (decretum), 
his determination to make use of these means; 
and Stajcjycftj (executio, administratio), his actual 
fulfilment of his determination. But here it 
must be remembered that this can be said only 
anthropopathically of God, since in his mind 
there is no succession of acts. 

(b) The effect of this care, (actio externa.) 
In order to render the manner of this external 
agency of God in his providence in some degree 
intelligible, the schoolmen have assumed three 
external acts of providence — viz., preservation 
(conservatio), cooperation (concursus), and go- 
vernment (gubernatio) ; and under these three 
heads the doctrine of divine providence is usual- 
ly treated, (a) Preservation (conservatio) is 
that mighty and efficient agency of God by 
which created things continue to exist, by which 



the identity of their being is preserved ; efficient 
tia Dei, qua ipsae substantiee pergunt esse. It ex- 
tends to things already existing, and in this is 
distinguished from the act of creation; though, 
in reality, the preservation of the v/orld is 
only a continuation of the act of creation, and is 
therefore sometimes properly called, creaiio con- 
tinuata. (,3) Cooperation (concursus) is that 
act of God by which he preserves the powers 
originally imparted to created things, qua vires 
substantiarum durant. The term concursus, as 
as used by the schoolmen, is synonymous with 
auxilium; but it is a very inconvenient term, 
and leads naturally to the inquiry, whether God 
assists men and cooperates with them in their 
wicked actions'? This division has been wholly 
omitted by some modern theologians (e. g., by 
Doederlein), on the ground that the preservation 
of the existence of a thing without the preserva- 
tion of its powers cannot be conceived, and that 
this division is therefore necessarily involved 
in the preceding; which is indeed true, as to 
fact, though the preservation of the simple sub- 
stance of a thing, and the preservation of its 
powers of acting, may be made the subjects of 
distinct consideration by the mind, (y) Go- 
vernment (gubernatio, providentia stricte sic 
dicta) is that act of God by which he so orders 
all the changes which take place in the world, 
and so guides all the actions of his creatures, 
as to promote the highest possible good of the 
whole, and of every part. According to the 
usual method of theological writers we shall 
proceed to treat of this doctrine under the three 
foregoing heads ; in such a way, however, that 
what is said respecting the first two divisions 
(preservation and cooperation) will be con- 
nected together. Respecting the division of 
providence into ordinata and miraculosa, vide s. 
72, II. 

Note. — Notice of some of the principal works 
on the providence of God. The ancient heathen 
philosophers said much on this subject which 
was just and practically useful, though mingled 
with much that was erroneous. Gf. Xenophon's 
Memorabilia, the writings of Plato, and other 
disciples of Socrates. Cf. also the writings of 
Marcus Aurelius, and of other stoics. The 
work of Cicero, De Natur. Deor. ; and of Se- 
neca, De Providentia, deserve particular men- 
tion. Some of the early ecclesiastical fathers 
devoted whole works to this subject. Chry- 
sostom wrote a book on providence. Gregory 
of Nazianzen treated of it in his discourses, 
particularly the sixteenth. Theodoret wrote 
" Sermones de Providentia." Salvianus Mas- 
siliensis, a Latin father of the fifth century, 
wrote a work entitled "De gubernatione Dei." 
In modern times, the theory of this subject has 
been ably discussed in the writings of Kant, 
and other works on the philosophy of religion 



WORKS OF GOD. 



241 



Works of a more practical and popular cast are 
the following: — Jacobi, Betrachtungen iiber die 
weisen Absichten Gottes; Hanover, 1765 — 66, 
8vo; Jerusalem, Betrachtungen iiber die wicht- 
igsten Wahrheiten der Religion ; Sander, Ueber 
die Vorsehung; Leipzig, 1780 — 81, 8vo; also 
the work " Fur Anbeter Gottes, 1780, by the 
same author; Zollikofer, Betrachtungen iiber 
das Uebel in der Welt; Leipzig, 1777, 8vo; 
and many of the Sermons of this author; Jacob, 
Von der Religion ; Koppen, Die Bibel, ein 
Werk der gottlichen, Weisheit, in which excel- 
lent work there are many fine and useful remarks 
on this subject. 

SECTION LXIX. 

OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTENCE AND 
OF THE POWERS OF CREATED BEINGS AND 
THINGS. 

I. Preservation of Creatures in General. 

The great end which God has in view in his 
providence over the world is the welfare of his 
creatures. On him does their existence and 
well-being every moment depend. The powers 
which they possess from the beginnining of 
their existence, and the laws by which these 
powers are exercised, have their only ground in 
the divine will. This will of God is the effi- 
cient cause of the existence of his creatures, 
and of all the powers which they possess ; and 
not only so, but of the continuance of these 
creatures, with their powers and laws. These 
laws, in conformity with which the powers of 
created things develop themselves, are com- 
monly called the laws of nature. These pro- 
positions need to be farther illustrated and esta- 
blished. 

1. The proof that God preserves the existence 
and the powers of all created things is drawn 
from the following sources : — 

(a) From the contingency of the world. The 
world does not necessarily exist; it has not the 
ground of its existence in itself; but it is contin- 
gent, and depends upon the will of God. Vide 
s. 15, 4G. It must therefore continue to exist 
through the same power which first gave it 
being. The purpose of God to create the world 
could not have been confined to the first instant 
of its creation, but must have comprised its 
whole future being and permanent existence. 
Now this purpose of God is unalterable, and 
cannot be hindered or turned aside by the inter- 
vention of any object; but must endure while 
the creation continues. The continuance, there- 
fore, of the creation, through every moment of 
its existence, is so intimately connected with the 
purpose of God respecting its first existence, that 
it can hardly be separated from it, even in 
thought. Cf. the theory of the divine decrees, 
s. 32. 

31 



(6) From experience and history. That God 
preserves the works which he has created may 
be rendered very obvious from a survey of the 
world and a review of its past history. Cf. es- 
pecially the work of Sander above mentioned, 
and the w 7 orks on teleology noticed s. 15, I. 2, 
ad finem. If we look no further than the phy- 
sical world, and confine our attention to its wise 
adaptation to the ends which it is made to an- 
swer, we shall be driven to the conviction 
that it is not the work of chance or blind acci- 
dent, but that, on the contrary, it is constituted 
by an intelligence which, though invisible, 
guides and governs all things with infinite 
wisdom. The following are examples of innu- 
merable teleological observations which might 
be made. No single species of animals has pe- 
rished, notwithstanding all that has been done 
to destroy them, and all the dangers to which 
they have been exposed from floods, earthquakes, 
&c. ; nor has any species undergone essential 
alterations. The nature and qualities of the 
horse, the lion, the crocodile, &c, are still the 
same as they were described to be by Moses, 
Homer, Aristotle, and other ancient writers. 
Between the individuals also of the different 
species, the same relations and proportions 
which have always been observed still exist. 
Wild and dangerous animals multiply less ra- 
pidly than tame and domestic ones. The short- 
lived animals, and particularly insects, propa- 
gate their kind in great numbers; those that 
live longer produce fewer young. Were the 
ephemeral insects no more prolific than the lion 
and the elephant, their race would be soon ex- 
tinct; and were the progeny of the lion and ele- 
phant as numerous as that of the insect tribes, 
the earth would soon be insufficient to support, 
or even contain them, and other species of ani- 
mals would be driven out and destroyed before 
them. In the material world there is a constant 
ebb and flow ; on the one hand, decay, death, 
and destruction; on the other, life, and ever- 
renewed activity and motion ; in short, through- 
out the world there are conflicting powers, by 
which the things that belong to it are at one 
time wasted and destroyed, at another revived 
and animated; but yet, after all, everything 
exists in the most just proportion and perfect 
order ; and every apparent dissonance is resolved 
at last into an uninterrupted harmony. Every 
sensitive being stands in such a relation to the 
rest of the world that it finds what is necessary 
for its support and welfare. And any one who 
will consider all this with attention, will be led 
to the conclusion that it results from the consti- 
tution of a Being who is supremely intelligent, 
and who guides all things in such a way as to 
promote his own purposes. What is so suitably 
arranged, so wisely and accurately adapted to 
its ends, and so perfectly adjusted to all its rela • 
X 



242 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



tions, cannot possibly be the work of blind 
chance. Against such a supposition the reason 
of man instantly revolts. 

[Note. — The validity of this proof from expe- 
rience is denied by Staiidlin, (Lehrb. s. 273,) 
and also by Bretschneider, for the following rea- 
sons : — (1) Our experience is too young and too 
limited to enable us to derive an argument from 
it with certainty. (2) From experience it can- 
not be shewn that everything has been the same 
from the beginning of the creation as it now is. 
(3) The argument from experience is rendered 
uncertain by the fact that several species of ani- 
mals — e. g., the mammoth — are wholly extinct, 
and other facts of a similar nature. They 
therefore rest the proof of the preservation of 
the world by the agency of God, solely upon 
the metaphysical and scriptural arguments. — 
Tr.] 

(c) From the express declarations of the holy 
scriptures, which coincide with what we are 
taught by experience and history, and which 
indeed, by their example, lead us to make the 
observations and to draw the conclusions just 
stated. Among the most explicit of these decla- 
rations are those contained in Psalm civ. 8 — 16, 
27, 28, and particularly ver. 29. "Thou takest 
away their breath, they die, and return to their 
dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are 
created : and thou renewestthe face of the earth." 
Here also the words of Christ, which are so 
useful as examples of proper instruction, should 
be particularly mentioned, Matt. vi. 26, seq.; 
x. 29. According to these representations, not 
a hair falls from the head of man, not a bird falls 
to the ground, not a flower withers in the field, 
without the notice and will of God. Hence 
we, who were made for such higher purposes, 
should confidently trust in God, and renounce all 
painful solicitude and despondency, all doubt 
and despair. For if God takes care of the less, 
how much more will he of the greater! of us, 
therefore, whose destination is so much more 
exalted than that of his other creatures. Our life, 
our activity, our whole existence, proceeds from 
him ; and as a father, he constantly cares for us, 
Acts, xvii. 28. 

2. In considering the powers which God im- 
parts to his creatures, and the continuance of 
which he secures, two things need especially to 
be noticed — viz., their degree and their use. 

(a) The degree (modus) of these powers. 
And this again is either essential — i. e., necessa- 
rily requisite to the very existence of the thing, 
so that, in defect of it, it would cease to be what 
it is, or contingent, accidental, inasmuch as the 
proportion of powers in different individuals be- 
longing to the same kind, may be, and actually 
is, different. These contingent powers and ca- 
pacities are either innate or acquired, and in- 
creased and strengthened by discipline and ex- 



ercise. For example : it is essential to the ex- 
istence of a man that he possess reason, memory, 
and imagination; these are vires essentiales ; but 
one man surpasses another in these powers, and 
this is what is contingent. One man has a na- 
tural and innate talent for poetry, music, paint- 
ing, or some other art or employment; another 
acquires skill in these things by effort and dili- 
gence. Now in this difference of degree in these 
powers, and in the wise proportion and allotment 
of them to animate and inanimate, rational and 
irrational creatures, the wise providence of God 
is clearly exhibited. 

(6) The use of these powers is granted to the 
creatures of God for their own advantage and 
the good of the whole. This is very obvious in 
the case of the natural instincts imparted to ani- 
mals. Vide Reimarus, Von den Trieben, beson- 
ders den Kunsttrieben derThi^re — an excellent 
work. In this respect man is far inferior to the 
lower orders of creatures. But in place of in- 
stinct he has reason and free will, by which he 
is determined to action. Vide s. 26, 1. And in 
this his great advantage over other creatures con- 
sists; by this, his moral nature, he resembles 
God, and is more nearly related to him than other 
creatures who inhabit the earth. And God has 
enabled man so to use his powers that the free- 
dom of the human will shall not be at all in- 
fringed. 

From what has now been said it appears (a) 
that God is the first cause of all the powers 
which his creatures possess. (5) That God 
may be said in a certain sense to cooperate 
(concurrere) with the free actions of men, since 
he grants them the powers necessary to action, 
even to free action, and continually preserves 
the powers which he has given; and moreover 
is able to overrule their evil actions so as to 
make them promote the greatest good. But (c) 
since this language is liable to misapprehension, 
and might be understood in such a sense as 
would be inconsistent with the freedom of the 
will, and would represent God as the author and 
promoter of sin, it is better to make an accurate 
distinction between the powers themselves 
granted to moral beings, and the exercise of 
these powers in free actions. The powers of 
action come from God ; but he has left the use 
and exercise of these powers to moral beings. 
This is involved in the very idea of moral being, 
which would cease to be moral if it were sub- 
jected to the control of necessity, and not suf- 
fered to choose and to do what it saw to be best, 
according to the laws of freedom. Vide s. 26, 1. 
God is not, therefore, the efficient cause of the 
free actions of moral beings. This distinction 
is thus expressed by the schoolmen: Dsum con- 
currere ad materiale actionis liberie — i. e., God 
gives to men the powers of action, and preserves 
these powers every moment, but not ad formale 



WORKS OF GOD. 



(43 



actionis liberae — i. e., he is not the efficient cause 
of the free actions themselves. Thus, for ex- 
ample, when a man opens his mouth to lie, or 
to forswear, God grants him the power at that 
very moment to open his mouth and to speak 
(concurrit ad materiale actionis ,-) but the use of 
this power (formate actionis) is left to the man 
himself, and he might open his mouth to speak 
the truth, and to glorify God. The action, 
therefore, whatever it is, is his own, and for it 
he himself is accountable: which could not be 
the case if the action proceeded from another. 

Note. — In contemplating the preservation of 
the existence and of the powers of all created 
beings, we find great occasion to recognise and 
admire the divine wisdom and goodness, and also 
a powerful motive to seek for true holiness. 
This is the application which the sacred writers 
made of this doctrine; and hence the ample in- 
struction on this subject which they give us is 
so eminently calculated to produce a good prac- 
tical effect. Cf. s. 24 and s. 28, II. Also Ci- 
cero, De Natur. Deor. ii. 39, seq., and 47. 

II. Preservation of Men. 

1. Men are the only creatures of God upon the 
earth who possess a moral nature, or who have 
reason and freedom of will; and as possessing 
these, they are capable of a far higher degree of 
perfection and happiness than the lower orders 
of creation. Hence the care of God for them is 
more apparent, and seems to be more active and 
efficient, than for his other creatures. Matthew, 
vi. 26, "ovx v[A£i$ /xa'h'kov Statyiptts avtH>v ; Acts, 
xvii. 26, 28, yivo$ ®sov etifisv* Of this watchful 
care of God for the preservation of men we have 
abundant proof in the history of our race. Vide 
Siissmilch, Goettliche Ordnung in den Veran- 
derungendes mensclichen Geschlechts; Berlin, 
1788, 8vo. But more particularly — 

2. The life and all the powers of each indivi- 
dual of the human race depend upon God. Mo- 
rus, p. 77, n. 3. 

(a) Our life depends upon God. 

(a) As to its origin,- for although our parents, 
as the instruments of God, are the means by 
which we come into the world ; yet God is truly 
our creator, and the author of our existence. 
We are taught everywhere in the holy scriptures 
that God formed us, &c. ; Job, x. 8, 11, 12; 
Acts, xvii. 25, 27; Ps. cxxxix. 13 — 16; and 
also that he secures the continuance of the life 
which he imparts, orders all its changes, deter- 
mines the time, place, circumstances, and, in 
short, everything respecting it, Psalm xc, xci., 
cxxxix. ; Acts, xvii. 24 ; Matthew, vi., x. The 
Hebrews represented this truth in a very plain 
and striking manner, by supposing God to keep 
a book of fate and book of life, in which every 
man is enrolled, and has, as it were, his own 
portion assigned him, Ps. cxxxix. 16. Hence 



to be blotted out from the book of life is the same 
as to die, Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. lxix. 28. The 
meaning of the representation is this : — God de- 
termines the beginning and the end of our lives ; 
he is perfectly acquainted with our whole des- 
tiny ; everything in our whole existence depends 
upon him, and is under his control and govern- 
ment. 

(,3) As to its termination. However contin- 
gent the time of our death may appear, it is still 
at the disposal of God ; Job, xiv. 5, "Thou hast 
appointed his bounds which he cannot pass." 
Ps. xc. 3, "Thou turnest man to destruction, 
and sayest, Return, ye children of men ;" Psalm 
xxxi. 15; xxxix. 4, 5. These texts, however, 
and others of a similar nature, have been often 
erroneously supposed to imply an unconditional 
decree of God respecting the life and death of 
every man. Against this erroneous opinion of 
an unconditional decree of God, determining ir- 
revocably the bounds of the life of man, the 
Christian teacher should carefully guard his 
hearers, since it is not unfrequently entertained 
even by those who are cultivated and enlight- 
ened, as well as by those who are ignorant. It 
may encourage the most rash and foolhardy un- 
dertakings ; and where it is thoroughly believed 
and consistently carried out into action, it must 
lead to the neglect of the proper means of reco- 
very from sickness, and of the necessary pre-- 
cautions against approaching danger. For if the 
fixed period of my life is now arrived, may one 
say who is of this opinion, these remedies can 
be of no service to me ; if it is not yet come, they 
are wholly unnecessary. This error has been 
for along time widely diffused over the East; 
and Mahommed himself was a strict fatalist and 
predestinarian. He believed that every event 
in the life and the very hour of the death of every 
man was settled by an unalterable predetermi- 
nation. This doctrine has received the name 
of fatum Turcicum among modern European 
Christians, because among all the Mahomme- 
dans by whom it is professed, the Turks are 
those with whom the Europeans are most ac- 
quainted, and in whom they have seen the evil 
influence of this doctrine most clearly displayed. 
It would be more properly denominated fatum 
Muhammedicum. The opinion that the bound 
of human life is unalterably determined was also 
adopted by those ancient philosophers who be- 
lieved in the doctrine of fate. Vide s. 67. 
Hence the stoical dilemma of which mention is 
made by Cicero, in his treatise, " De Fato ;" Si 
fatum tibi est, ex hoc morbo convalescere, site 
medicum adhibueris, sive non, convalesces ; [and 
the saying, Nisifatale segro mori, facile evadett 
cuifatale mori, vel pediculi morsu conficeretur.~\ 
On this principle suicide might be justified, or 
at least palliated, as has been actually done. 
God does indeed, in every case, foresee and 



244 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



know how long a man will live, and the result 
will perfectly agree with this foreknowledge, 
since the omniscient God cannot be mistaken in 
what he knows. But to stop here would be to 
take only a partial view of some of the divine 
attributes, which would lead into error. God 
has indeed formed a purpose respecting the 
length of the life of every man ; but for the very 
reason that he is omniscient, he has formed this 
purpose only on consideration of natural and 
moral causes ; his providence therefore does not 
make it in itself unconditionally necessary that 
any man should die at such a particular time. 
The purpose of God is a conditional one, founded 
upon a knowledge of all the circumstances into 
which the individual who is the object of it 
would come, and also upon the knowledge of all 
his free actions. Vide s. 32, 1, ad finem. God 
foresees how the body of every man will be con- 
stituted ; in what situation it will be placed ; of 
what character his moral actions will be, and 
what consequences will flow from them, &c. 
And from his foreknowledge of all these circum- 
stances respecting him, God forms his purpose, 
fixing the termination of his life. The bodily 
constitution which a man brings with him into 
the world, and which is afterwards affected by 
so many circumstances, perfectly known to God, 
and under his control, is one of the conditions 
upon which the purpose of God respecting the 
end of human life is founded ; and this period, 
so far as it depends upon our bodily constitution, 
cannot be passed over. When the clock runs 
down, it stops; when the flower blossoms, it 
fades ; and man cannot give himself a new body, 
nor can God, except by miracle. This period 
of life, depending upon the natural constitution 
of the body, and upon other natural circum- 
stances, is called the natural bound of human 
life ; and this cannot be prolonged by man him- 
self. Now if a man dies earlier than he would 
naturally have done, whether from his own fault 
or that of others, or from some outward accident, 
(the cause, however, of whatever kind, being 
known to God, and under his providence and 
control,) his death is said to be unnatural, 
extraordinary, or sometimes consequens, in op- 
position to the other, which is called antece- 
dens. The cases here supposed are described 
in the Bible by the phrases, to fulfil one's days, 
(vp> nx ssSd,) or not to fulfil them, Isa. Ixv. 20. 
And in this way are we to understand those pas- 
sages in which God is said to lengthen out, or to 
abridge, the life of man. The meaning of these 
terms is, that God so directs the course of nature 
that a particular man lives longer than he would 
naturally have lived, or than he was expected to 
live. Hence it appears that man can do nothing 
himself to prolong his life beyond the natural 
limits of human existence ; but that he may do 
much to shorten it. To return now to the sto- 



ical dilemma. When a man is sick, he must 
call for a physician, and make use of prescribed 
remedies, because he cannot be certain that the 
end of his life has now come. The purpose of 
God respecting his life or his death is in this 
case, as we must conceive it, merety conditional. 
If he uses the proper means, he will recover ; if 
not, he will die; and God, as he is omniscient, 
knows which of these courses he will pursue, 
and therefore whether he will die or live. A 
vehement controversy arose on this subject, in 
the seventeenth century, between the reformed 
philosophers and some theologians of the Ne- 
therlands, on occasion of the work of Beverovi- 
cius, Quxstiones Epistolicse de vitse termino fatali ; 
Dortrecht, 1634, 8vo; and enlarged, Leiden, 
163G, 4to. 

(b) Our powers depend upon God. These 
powers are very various ; but they may be class- 
ed under two general divisions, the powers of 
soul and of body — spiritual and corporeal powers. 
Now as man did not give himself these powers, 
so neither can he retain possession of them by 
his own strength or skill. Hence they are 
justly described in the Bible as the gift of God. 
Worldly respectability, mental endowments, 
sound judgment, memory, learning — all are 
given by God ; and that one man surpasses an- 
other in these respects is owing to his will and 
his wise government, Exod. iv. 11; James, i. 
17; 1 Cor. iv. 7. Those happy combinations 
of circumstances by which we are sometimes 
enabled to accomplish with ease the enterprises 
with regard to which we and others were ready 
to despair, are to be ascribed to God, although 
we are often disposed to consider them as the 
effect of chance. We owe the success of all 
our undertakings, not to our own wisdom and 
skill, but solely to the wise and benevolent pro- 
vidence of God. To lead men to feel this, is a 
great object with the sacred writers, who every- 
where recommend to them the exercise of these 
pious and humble dispositions by which they 
may be strengthened in their faith in God, and 
preserved against pride and selfish blindness. 
Hence they always ascribe the powers of man, 
and his success in exercising them, directly to 
God, as the first cause ; in such a way, however, 
that second causes, which also depend upon him, 
are not excluded. Morus, p. 77, n. 1,2. In 
this connexion, reference should be made to Ps 
cxxvii., where we are taught that our mos 
strenuous efforts will be in vain, unless Goti 
grants us success. 

Note. — Such meditations respecting the pre- 
servation of our existence, powers, and the 
healthful and successful employment of them, 
are very instructive and practical. They are 
calculated to fill our minds with peace and joy, 
and to excite hearty gratitude to God. Christ 
makes use of these considerations to shew us 



WORKS OF GOD. 



45 



that we should not be distrustful of God, and 
should not trouble ourselves with anxious cares. 
Since God takes so much care of the various 
orders of being", of beasts, and even of inanimate 
things, how much more will he care for us, to 
whom he has given a destination by far more 
noble than theirs ! Matt. vi. 25, seq. He espe- 
cially warns us against anxious cares as to our 
bodily support, since they withdraw us from 
more important concerns, and render us disqua- 
lified for religion, and divine instruction. Luke, 
viii. 14, at [Aspcpvai, Tfov jSt'o-u Gvprtviyovtib tov 
hoyov, the cares of life prevent the efficacy of 
divine truth upon our hearts. 

SECTION LXX. 

OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD. 

I. Statement of this Doctrine. 

From what has already been said, it appears 
that God is perfectly acquainted with all the 
efficient causes which exist, both those which 
are free in their agency and those that are other- 
wise ; that he knows every act of these causes, 
and all the effects which they produce, and that 
he guides and controls them all at his pleasure, 
and makes them subservient to his own designs. 
And it is in this his guiding and controlling all 
the changes and all the actions of his creatures, 
so as to promote the highest good of the whole, 
amd of each part, that the government of God 
consists. The good of the whole involves that 
of all the parts of which it is made up, and one 
cannot be secured exclusively of the other. The 
sum of the good of all the individuals under the 
government of God constitutes the good of the 
whole. Hence the propriety of making the 
good of each part an object of the government 
of God. 

In order to form a correct judgment respect- 
ing the good secured in the world under the go- 
vernment of God — a subject on which mistakes 
are very common, the following principles should 
be kept in mind. 

1. The degree of perfection and happiness 
attainable by different beings varies according 
to their different relations. All beings are not 
susceptible of an equal degree of good. The 
beast, for example, seeks for nothing further 
than the satisfaction of his hunger and thirst, 
and the gratification of his other natural appe- 
tites. But moral beings require more than this 
for their happiness ; they have a higher destina- 
tion, and are capable of a higher good. And 
even among men themselves, the external good 
of which they are capable is different according 
to the original constitution, the abilities, and 
even the age, of different individuals. The good 
which would be adapted to a child is not such 
as would satisfy the desires of a man. 



2. Such is the constitution which God has 
given to the world, that the happiness of one is 
often subordinate and must be sacrificed to the 
happiness of another. This is clearly taught 
by experience; though doubtless philosophers 
would prove, if the testimony of experience 
were not so explicit, that this could not be so. 
We find, however, that many animals serve for 
the nourishment of others, by whom they are 
constantly devoured. And how many of them 
are there which daily suffer from the free ac- 
tions of men ! For us, with all our short-sight- 
edness, to call in question the wisdom and jus- 
tice of what God thus ordains, or permits, and 
to suppose that it could or should have been 
otherwise, is unwarrantable presumption. It is 
enough for us to know that such is the divine 
plan, which we are unable fully to comprehend, 
but which, for the very reason that God chose 
it, is the wisest, best, and most adapted to its 
ends. So we are taught by the holy scriptures, 
and further than this, with all our speculative 
philosophy, we cannot go. Vide s. 48, ad 
finem, and s. 71, II. 

3. Happiness is frequently connected with 
certain conditions, on the fulfilment of which 
our enjoyment of it depends. For example : the 
enjoyment of good health depends in a great 
measure upon temperance. If any one fails to 
comply with these established conditions, the 
loss of the good which he had hoped for is to 
be ascribed to himself, and not to God. 

These considerations are overlooked by the 
great body of mankind ; and hence it is, that 
when affairs do not take the turn which they 
wish, they complain and murmur respecting the 
divine government. The mistakes most fre- 
quent on the subject of divine providence are 
the following — viz., (a) Men are apt to consider 
their whole happiness as placed in the enjoy- 
ment of a certain kind of advantages, perhaps 
that very kind of which they are deprived ; per- 
haps, too, advantages which possess no intrin- 
sic value, which are transient and uncertain, 
and which, if obtained, could not make the pos- 
sessor truly happy. The poor often desire, 
most of all things, that they may be rich ; and 
the sick, that they may enjoy good health. But 
how undesirable is it often, both for their tem- 
poral and eternal welfare, that their wishes 
should be gratified ! (J:) Men are prone to for- 
get that the good of the whole is to be consulted 
for, and that individuals must often sacrifice to 
the general welfare some private advantages, 
for which, however, they are to receive an equi- 
valent in other ways, as they ma} r confidently 
expect, from the goodness of God, and as expe- 
rience even in the present world has often 
proved, (c) Men are prone to regard dispro- 
portionately the present pain and unhappiness 
which they experience, and to forget that under 
x2 



246 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



their sufferings and deprivations there may be 
concealed the germ of a greater temporal and 
eternal good, (d) Men are disposed to charge 
God unjustly with denying them, or depriving 
them of certain advantages, the loss of which 
is wholly their own fault. How many of the 
sick and the destitute complain of God as the 
author of their sufferings, while their own con- 
sciences must assure them that they alone are 
to blame ! 

II. Proof of this Doctrine. 

1. From the natural constitution of the world, 
(argumentum physicum,) it is impossible for 
the human mind to conceive how the admirable 
order and harmony which appear in the uni- 
verse, where all things are so intimately con- 
nected, run into, and depend upon one another, 
like the links of a chain, should exist without 
the superintendence and control of an infinitely 
•wise and almighty Being. Consider here the 
influence of the atmosphere upon the growth of 
plants, upon the life, health, and support of ani- 
mate beings. Reflect, too, that one country has 
a surplus of certain useful productions, of which 
another country is wholly destitute. The former 
cannot use its surplus productions, the latter is 
compelled to seek elsewhere what its own soil 
does not produce, and to obtain it where it can 
be found in the greatest abundance. This gives 
rise to trade, activity, enterprise ; and these bring 
in wealth, &c. 

2. From experience, (argumentum histori- 
cum.) This may be either personal or general, 
and so is called by Morus duplicem providentise 
scholam, p. 83, s. 8. This proof, when rightly 
exhibited, is very obvious and intelligible, even 
to the unlearned. In the events which take 
place around us, let the attention be directed to 
the causes by which they are effected — to the 
time, place, and other circumstances in which 
these causes acted. .By their slow and often 
unnoticed combination, effects are produced at 
which every one is astonished. The smallest 
occurrences often lead to the greatest revolu- 
tions; wicked actions are made the means of 
good, and result in the advantage of those whom 
they were designed to injure, so that many can 
say, with Joseph, (Gen. 1. 20,) "Ye thought 
evil against me, but God meant it for good." 
Men who are to be the means of eminent good 
to the world, or to perform some distinguished 
service, must be called forth upon the stage of 
action at exactly the most proper time, in ex- 
actly the most suitable place, and at precisely 
the most favourable juncture of other circum- 
stances. When history is studied with these 
considerations kept in mind, (and in the study 
of history they should never be omitted, as they 
are now, alas ! too frequently, by those who 



teach this branch to the young,) what to the 
ignorant and thoughtless might appear to be 
chance or accident, exhibits clear marks of a 
guiding Providence. And this is the high posi- 
tion, from which those who have the scriptures 
in their hand can survey all the events recorded 
in the history of the world. We may refer to 
the history of Joseph, to the ancient history of 
the <Iews, that of the diffusion of Christianity, 
of the Reformation, and the more important 
events of our own times, as remarkable exam- 
ples. Vide Schroeckh, Disp. historia provi- 
dentiam divinam, quando et quam clare loqua- 
tur; Vitebergs, 1776. J. G. Miiller, Briefe 
iiber das Studium der Wissenschaften, beson- 
ders der Geschichte; Zurch, 1798, 8vo — a work 
full of valuable remarks drawn from experience, 
which deserve to be considered, especially 
by the teachers of religion, and to be carefully 
applied by them to practice. But we ought by 
no means to confine our attention to the great 
events which are recorded in the history of the 
world. To one who is an attentive observer of 
all the changes through which he himself passes, 
his own life will furnish abundant materials for 
the most interesting and useful observations 
respecting the providence of God. And such 
observations are uncommonly useful in popular 
instruction. They tend to awaken and cherish 
religious dispositions. If men suppose that God 
exercises no care over them, they have no ground 
or motive to love and worship him. But since 
holiness is the true end for which we, as moral 
beings, were made, and since our capacity for 
happiness is in exact proportion to our holiness, 
we ought to pay particular attention to those 
dealings of Divine Providence with us by which 
this great end is promoted. To every man 
whose moral character is in any considerable 
degree improved and advanced, whatever he has 
experienced himself, or noticed in others, tending 
to the promotion of holiness, possesses an inex- 
pressible interest; and any who are destitute of 
feeling on this point, and can ridicule the spiri- 
tual experiences of pious Christians, and what 
they communicate of their experiences to others, 
either by writing or by oral relation, give mourn- 
ful proof that they themselves are as yet uni- 
formed, and are turning aside from the true end 
of their being. One who is taught in his youth 
to refer everything in his own life to God, and 
to search for the traces of divine providence in 
what befals himself, will learn to look at the 
lives of others and at the history of nations in 
the same manner and with the same interes 
and will of course be dissatisfied when he sees 
that, in opposition to the example of the sacred 
writers, God is wholly left out of the account 
by so many historians. But, on the contrary, 
he who himself lives in the world without God, 



WORKS OF GOD. 



247 



may be content with a history in which the 
hand of God is unnoticed, and indeed will be 
displeased with any other. 

3. From the Bible. Morus, p. 79—81, s. 6. 
That God is the creator, proprietor, and governor 
of the world, that all things, even the t small- 
est, depend upon him, and that with infinite 
wisdom he overrules all for the highest good, 
are principles everywhere assumed in the Bible. 
The texts which relate to providence, in the more 
general view of it, were cited s. 68, I. 2. The 
texts which relate more particularly to the divine 
government may be divided into the following 
classes: — (a) Those in which the guidance and 
direction of all events, both small and great, are 
expressly ascribed to God, Matt. vi. 31 ; Acts, 
xvii. 25, 26; 1 Chronicles, xxix. (al. xxx.) 12. 
(b) Those in which particular changes and oc- 
currences, past, present, and to come, are referred 
to God as the author; Isa. xliii. 12; Acts, iv. 
28 ; Psa. xc. ; Prov. xvi. 1, 33, "The lot is cast 
into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is 
of the Lord." (c) Those which contain divine 
promises and threatenings, and which would be 
without meaning on any supposition but that 
God is the governor of the world and the dis- 
poser of the destinies of men ; Exodus, xx. 12 ; 
Psa. xc, xci., &c. (d) Those in which God 
is entreated to avert calamities, to put an end 
to distress, to bestow blessings, &c. ; or those 
in which the granting of such requests is pro- 
mised, Psalm xxii. 5 ; cxxviii. ; Matt. xxvi. 39 ; 
1 Thess. iii. 10, 11. In order that this may be 
correctly understood, it should be compared 
with what was before said respecting the will 
and the purposes of God, s. 20, 32. 

Note. — It has been already frequently re- 
marked, that according to a mode of thinking 
and speaking common among the ancients, many 
things were represented as resulting immediately 
from the agency of God, though they were in 
reality effected through the instrumentality of 
second causes, which perhaps were merely not 
mentioned, perhaps were overlooked, or possibly, 
at that early period of the world, not even known. 
Vide s. 58, II. The mode of representation here 
referred to, and expressions and narrations 
founded upon it, occur frequently in the Bible, 
in Homer, and the ancient writers. Thus, for 
example, when we should say, it thunders, it 
rains, there is an earthquake, the ancients said, 
God thunders, &c, Psa. xxix.; civ. 32. Gen. 
xi. 7, 8 ; xix. 24, " God rained upon Sodom and 
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out 
of heaven." Many events, therefore, which 
would seem, from the manner in which they are 
spoken of, to be the results of the immediate 
agency of God, and to be accomplished in an 
extraordinary way, were really effected by na- 
tural causes. However, since these natural 
causes depend upon the government of God, this 



mode of speaking is in itself correct. And it is 
because we, in the present age, have so little of 
the religious feeling of the ancient world that 
we misunderstand their more pious and religious 
mode of expressing themselves, and even feel it 
to be offensive. The teacher of religion should, 
however, closely follow the example of the sa- 
cred writers in this respect, and ever imitate and 
preserve this more religious phraseology which 
they employ, and, like them, refer everything to 
God. And if, in order to prevent superstition, 
he should think it necessary to say that such an 
event took place naturally, he must be careful 
that he be not understood to mean that it took 
place without God, and that he does not thus be- 
come the means of causing his hearers to forget 
God, and to live at a distance from him. He 
ought, on the contrary, in such cases, to shew 
that although a particular event may have been 
natural, it was not the less owing to the agency 
of God ; that nature is only an instrument in the 
hands of God ; and that nothing therefore takes 
place which is not according to his will and 
purpose. 

SECTION LXXI. 

THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD IN RELATION TO THE 
FREEDOM OF MAN, AND TO THE EVIL EXISTING 
IN THE WORLD. 

I. In Relation to the Freedom of Man. 

On the one hand, the freedom of the human 
will is unimpaired by the government of God; 
and, on the other, the government of God is un- 
obstructed and undisturbed by the free actions 
of men. The freedom of man must at all events 
be maintained, for morality and accountability 
depend upon it. If he is not free to choose and 
to act, he cannot be accountable for his actions ; 
for they are not within his own power. We 
have already established the position (s. 22, 1.), 
that God foresees those actions which result from 
the freedom of man, and the consequences of 
them, as well as those which are necessary, or 
less contingent ; but that the former do not cease 
to be free because they are foreknown. This 
principle must be assumed as true in reasoning 
on this subject. W r e are not to expect, there- 
fore, that the government of God over moral 
beings will be shewn by his compelling them to 
perform good or bad actions. That men are free 
in what they do is everywhere assumed in the 
Bible, and must be presupposed in every system 
of morals. Vide Luke, viii. 5 — 15; xiii. 6 — 9; 
James, i. 13 — 15. 

Still, however, the free actions of moral beings 
are under the most minute inspection and the 
most perfect control of God. For these actions 
are dependent (a) upon the powers which man 
possesses, and for these powers he is indebted 



248 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to God alone. Vide s. 69. (6) Upon the laws 
of his physical and moral nature — i. e., the laws 
(in one case, of motion, and in the other, of 
thought) according to which he exercises his 
peculiar powers; and these laws are given and 
established by God. Vide ubi supra, (c) Upon 
external circumstances — upon things without the 
man himself; and these things, as all others, are 
under the control of God. Man, then, as a mo- 
ral being, is free to will, to resolve, and to act 
according to his resolutions. God furnishes him 
with occasions of acting in the external objects 
around him; he also gives him his powers of 
action, and preserves to him their exercise; but 
then permits him, though under his own guid- 
ance and supervision, to exert his powers ac- 
cording to his own will, and to perform his 
actions freely. Vide s. 69, I. ad finem. How 
this can be, we shall find it difficult to under- 
stand, however sagacious and fine-spun our 
philosophical theories may be; but that thus it 
is, that notwithstanding the providence of God 
we remain free in our actions, must be firmly 
maintained if we would not degrade ourselves 
below the standard of moral beings, if we would 
not falsify the dictates of that moral feeling so 
deeply implanted by the Creator himself in our 
hearts, and if we would not consequently over- 
turn the first and most important doctrines of 
morality. Every man's own consciousness, the 
clear dictates of his moral nature, convince him 
that he is free, beyond the necessity, or even the 
possibility, of a further demonstration. Cf. the 
writings of the modern philosophers of the dif- 
ferent schools— Eberhard, Ueber dieFreyheit; 
and Jacob's clear and perspicuous treatise on the 
same subject, according to the principles of the 
Critical philosophy, contained in Kiesewetter's 
work, " Ueber den ersten Grundsatz der Moral- 
philosophie;" Leipzig und Halle, 1788, 8vo. 
On account of the deficiencies and difficulties 
attending metaphysical demonstrations of free- 
dom, and the perplexed and endless speculations 
by which both sides of this question have been 
argued, Kant rejected them all as insufficient, 
and as leading into error; and would have us 
depend more upon experience, and believe and 
hold fast the doctrine of human freedom, because 
it is so indispensable in morals that without it 
morality cannot be conceived to exist. [This 
view of Kant, implying that freedom, while it 
is a postulate of our practical reason, (i. e., ne- 
cessary to be assumed in order to moral action,) 
is yet inconsistent with our theoretical reason, 
(i. e., incapable of demonstration, and contrary 
to the conclusions to which the reflecting mind 
arrives,) is now very generally rejected. We 
cannot admit a twofold and contradictory reason, 
nor can we adopt a principle for practice to 
which our speculative reason is statedly op- 
posed. It is justly remarked by Bockshammer, 



in his brief but comprehensive treatise on the 
Will, that even practical freedom cannot be ade- 
quately maintained, if, while we must deem our- 
selves free, we are yet left to suspect, by the 
decisions of our speculative reason, that in real- 
ity we, act from some concealed necessity, under 
the laws of which our inmost being is placed." 
Vide Bockshammer, Ueber die Freyheit des 
mensch. Willens, s. 5, f . ; Stuttgart, 1821. — 
Tr.] The more full investigation of the whole 
subject belongs rather to the department of mo- 
ral science than here. 

The exhibition of this subject in popular in- 
struction should be kept as free as possible from 
all philosophical subtleties; and it would be 
well if the teachers of religion, from regard to 
their own peace and comfort, as well as that of 
their hearers, would abide by the following 
simple principles, which accord alike with scrip- 
ture and experience, (a) God, with a view to 
the real welfare of man, gives him the means 
and opportunities necessary to withhold him from 
the choice of evil, and to lead him to what is 
right. (6) For many of our free actions, he 
furnishes us with inducement and encourage- 
ment in the external circumstances in which he 
has placed us; and he so orders these circum- 
stances as to promote what we ourselves under- 
take, and to give it a happy issue. He makes 
use of these circumstances also as a warning to 
us and others to abstain from such actions as 
we find attended with unhappy consequences. 
These encouragements and warnings may serve 
as examples to shew the consistency between 
the divine government and human freedom ; frr 
we are still at liberty, and have it still within 
our power, to do that to which we are encour- 
aged, and to abstain from that from which we 
are warned ; and in both cases we remain the 
authors of our own free actions, (c) God re- 
wards men for their good actions, and punishes 
them for those that are bad ; which he could not 
do, were men not free in performing them. 
Vide s. 31. (g£) God frequently prevents 
wicked actions, which men had intended and 
resolved to perform. The brethren of Joseph, 
for example, were not able to execute their de- 
signs against his life, Gen. xxxix. God, how- 
ever, does not always do this ; but, on the con- 
trary, sometimes permits the wicked actions of 
men, since otherwise he would destroy their 
freedom. But then these wicked actions are 
overruled by him to be the means of good, Gen. 
1. 20; Acts, ii. 36. If in any case, however, 
they are wholly irreconcilable with the wise and 
benevolent plan of his government, or, which is 
the same thing, cannot be made to contribute to 
the general good which he seeks to promote, he 
then directly prevents them. What actions and 
events belong to this class it is impossible for 
us to say, and can be known only to the omni- 



WORKS OF GOD. 



2*49 



scient God. (e) The result and issue of all ac- 
tions, good and bad, depend solely upon God. 
Vide s. 70. Many a scheme, which appeared 
in itself to be a masterpiece of human wisdom 
and prudence, has failed of success, while the 
most foolish and inconsiderate undertakings 
have been prospered. Vide Eccles. ix. 11; 
Prov. xvi. 1, seq. ; James, iv. 13 — 15. This 
would be seen by us much more frequently if 
we were not accustomed to look rather at the 
result than at the intention and plan. If the re- 
sult is favourable, we judge favourably of the 
design itself; and the reverse. Hence it is that 
we find praise and blame so unjustly awarded 
in history. When we think to benefit ourselves 
or others by a particular course of action, we 
often injure both ourselves and others ; and the 
reverse. Hence it is said, that while the free- 
dom of men and other moral beings is not de- 
stroyed by the divine government, it is yet con- 
fined and limited. Cf. Morus, p. 81, s. 3, 6, 
Notes. [Also Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. i. 
s. 644, s. dS, 6.] 

II. In Relation to Evil. 

1. The many evils which exist in the w r orld, 
and the calamities which befal the human race, 
have from the earliest times been regarded as a 
standing objection against the providence of 
God. How they can consist with his wisdom 
and goodness, and consequently with his provi- 
dence, is a question which men at all times have 
found it difficult to answer. These evils are 
either physical or moral ; and the permission of 
either of them has appeared to be subversive of 
divine providence. The existence of evil was 
brought forward as an argument against provi- 
dence by Epicurus. Vide Lucretius, De Rerum 
Natura, l.v. ; Cicero, De Nat. Deorum; Lac- 
tantius, De ira Dei, c. 13. The stoics, on the 
other hand, undertook to answer this objection. 
Vide Seneca, De Beneficiis, iv. 4, seq. This 
objection appeared so strong to Bayle, that, in 
the article on Manicheism, in his Dictionary, he 
pronounces it unanswerable. But Leibnitz, in 
his "Theodicee," endeavoured to resolve the 
doubts of Bayle, and to establish a correct phi- 
losophical theory respecting the existence of 
evil.* An argument has sometimes been drawn 
against providence from the complaints of the 
sacred writers respecting the evil existing in the 
world, and the unhappy fate of man, especially 
those which occur in the book of Ecclesiastes. 



[* Voltaire also opposed the doctrine of provi- 
dence in a poem on the destruction of Lisbon ; and 
when this doctrine was ably defended by Rousseau, 
in his Letter on Optimism, he replied by a philoso- 
phical romance entitled " Candide," in which he 
presents an appalling picture of the disorders of the 
world, from which he takes occasion to deride the 
notion of an overruling providence. — Th.] 
32 



But the object of the author of this book is not 
so much to arraign the providence of God, as to 
shew, from the instability of fortune, and the 
uncertainty of human schemes, that we should 
learn true wisdom, and that since providence 
affords us a sufficiency of good things, we should 
study the art, so rarely understood, of making a 
wise use of them, by which alone w r e can be 
contented and happy, Eccles. iii. vii. ix. 

In reply to these objections, it may be said, 
that if the providence of God can be proved 
from other arguments, the existence of evil can 
afford no reason to doubt or deny it. On the 
contrary, we must conclude, that since God per- 
mits and suffers evil in the world, it must be 
according to his wisdom, and be perfectly con- 
sistent with his providence, although we may 
not be able to understand how it can be so, and 
why he did not constitute a different order. 
Vide Seneca, De providentia, sive quare bonis 
viris mala accidant, cum sit providentia. The 
will and the power of God may be regarded 
either as exerted unconditionally , unconfined by 
any established order, or as exerted in conform- 
ity with a certain established order of things. 
In the exercise of his absolute, unconditional 
power, God could remove evil out of the way; 
but he will not always do this, because it is 
against the order which from his wisdom he 
found it necessary to establish. He indeed 
foresaw the existence of evil, and permits it, 
(cf. Ps. Ixxxi. 12, 13; Acts, xiv. 16; Rom. i. 
24 ;) but so far as it is evil, he can never have 
pleasure in it, or himself promote or favour it; 
James, i. 13 — 17. He has admitted it into his 
general plan, because he can make it, in its con- 
nexion with other things, the means of a good, 
which, without it, either could not be effected 
at all, or at least not so well, as by its being 
permitted. What Christ said, Matt. xiii. 29, is 
very true, that if the tares were pulled up the 
wheat Avould be pulled up with them ; and that, 
to prevent this, the tares and the wheat must be 
suffered to grow together. We are acquainted 
with only a small part of what is embraced in 
the universe of God ; and even this small part is 
understood by us very imperfectly ; and as to 
the true internal relation of things — the ends 
for which they exist, and the consequences by 
which they are followed, our knowledge is ex- 
tremely defective; we are therefore unable to 
form a right judgment respecting the relation of 
evil to good, and of the amount of evil to the 
amount of good. 

Seneca says, Contro. iv. 27, "Necessitas 
magnum humanse feliciiatis patrocinium'* — Se- 
ctssity is a great consolation in the sufft rings of 
men. If by necessity he meant that blind, in- 
evitable fate to which the gods themselves are 
subject, then is it a poor consolation indeed; 
for what comfort would it be to a malefactor, 



25D 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



when carried towards the place of execution, 
to be continually informed that he must die, 
and there is no escaping- it. But if necessity 
may be understood to mean the order of things 
which God saw it necessary to constitute, then 
the maxim above stated is perfectly true ; it is 
accordant with the Christian spirit, and full of 
consolation, although this necessity may involve 
many things which are unintelligible and dis- 
agreeable to us. For if God, who is infinitely 
wise and benevolent, has constituted this order, 
it must be good, and adapted to the end which 
he has in view, however otherwise it may ap- 
pear to us. * 

Again; men who are dissatisfied with their 
lot often complain that certain blessings are 
denied them, without inquiring whether they 
themselves are susceptible of these blessings, 
and without remembering the many blessings 
which they already enjoy. Besides, the opinions 
of men respecting happiness are so various, 
and sometimes so foolish, that it would seem 
impossible that their wishes should all be grati- 
fied. Things sometimes desired as the greatest 
blessings would be, if possessed, the greatest 
injury to both soul and body; and the good- 
ness of Providence is shewn in withholding 
them. Cf. Zollikoffer, Betrachtungen iiber das 
Uebel in der Welt. Jacobi, Ueber die Weisen 
Absichten Gottes. De Maree, Gottesverthei- 
digung iiber die Zulassung des Bosen. 

2. Another argument against providence is, 
that the ungodly often prosper in the world, 
while the righteous suffer affliction. This is 
thought to be indirectly inconsistent with the 
wisdom and goodness of God, and therefore to 
disprove a superintending providence. The 
minds of reflecting persons have from the earli- 
est times been disturbed by this doubt; and the 
advocates of providence have endeavoured in 
various ways to solve it. It is frequently men- 
tioned in the Old Testament, and receives various 
answers, according to the different aspects which 
the subject assumes — e. g., Psalm xxxvii. xxxix. 
xlix., and especially lxxiii. ; Job, xvi. et passim. 
Many also among the Grecian philosophers were 
very much perplexed on this subject; and Di- 
ogenes the Cynic declared, " that the prosperity 
of the wicked disproved the power and wisdom 
of the gods;" Cicero, De Nat. Deor. iii. 34. 
Others, however, and particularly the stoics, 
undertook to answer this objection ; and Seneca, 
in his book "De Providentia," investigates the 
question how the righteous can suffer, if there 
is a divine providence 1 According to the opi- 
nion of Bayle this objection cannot be met by 
any satisfactory answer. But, 

(a) This objection results in a great measure 
from ignorance, and from the low and false esti- 
mate put upon the real advantages which the 
godly enjoy, and the true happiness which flows 



from the possession of them. Most of those 
who urge the objection, that the righteous suffer 
adversity, while the wicked prosper in the 
world, place happiness in external things, in the 
possession of wealth, or in sensual indulgences; 
and of course regard the poor man, who is little 
thought of by the world, as unhappy. But in 
this they mistake, overlooking the essential dis- 
tinction between true and only apparent good. 
True advantages, such as health of body, know- 
ledge of the truth, holiness of heart, and others, 
both of a physical and moral nature, make men 
happy by their own proper tendency. These 
are the true spiritual goods, the treasures in hea- 
ven, of which Christ speaks ; by the possession 
of which alone the soul is prepared for the true 
happiness of moral beings. But besides these, 
there are other things, such as riches, the enjoy- 
ments of sense, power, and honour, which may 
become advantages by a wise and rational use 
of them, but which otherwise are injurious, and 
the occasions of unhappiness to men. They 
are, however, regarded by many, even when 
unwisely and improperly used, as real blessings, 
because they excite sensations agreeable to the 
carnal mind. But to those who form a right 
judgment respecting them, they are, when im- 
properly used, only apparent blessings, because 
the pleasure which they produce is transient, 
and turns at last to pain. The writer of Psalm 
xlix. very justly decides, therefore, that the life 
of the profligate is only outwardly and in ap- 
pearance happy, and is often, in reality, only 
splendid and showy misery, to envy which 
would be extremely foolish. In Psalm lxxiii., 
Asaph points to the end of the wicked, and 
shews that their prosperity, being unsubstantial, 
is suddenly and in a moment lost. We cannot 
certainly regard that as a good in reference to 
another, or account him as happy for the pos- 
session of anything which he himself does not 
truly enjoy. But it is not unfrequently the case 
that the things most esteemed by the world, so 
far from making the possessor happy, are the 
occasion of disquietude and misery. And so it 
is often said in common life, that the fortune of 
the rich and powerful is only shining misery ; 
that they are not to be envied ; that we would 
not exchange places with them, &c. 

(b) When this is considered, and the state 
of the virtuous and the vicious is then compared, 
that of the former, though replete with external 
sufferings, must be pronounced to be more hap- 
py than that of the latter. For although the 
good man may have no worldly honour, no 
earthly riches, no superfluity of pleasures, he 
has true, spiritual, good treasures in heaven, 
which moth and rust do not corrupt, and which 
are secure from thieves, (Matt. vi. 19, 20 :) and 
although he were bowed down under external 
afflictions, he would yet maintain his integrity 



WORKS OF GOD. 



251 



of heart, and the reward which the favour of 
God secures — the greatest of all the blessings 
which men can enjoy. Vide Matt. xvi. 25. He 
has cheerfulness and tranquillity of soul; while 
those who seek their good in external things are 
constantly disquieted by passions, cares, and 
disappointments. But this blessedness which 
whic,h the virtuous man enjoys makes but little 
show in the world, and is hence so often under- 
valued by worldly men. They find it impos- 
sible to see or believe that there can be any 
happiness in things for which they have so little 
taste. This train of thought is much dwelt 
upon by the stoical philosophers, and by the 
sacred writers. 

(c) It is a mistake, however, to suppose that 
the virtuous always endure more external suf- 
ferings than the wicked ; for the righteous are 
frequently prosperous, even in their worldly 
affairs ; while the wicked are unsuccessful in 
all their undertakings. But these cases are less 
noticed, because they seem to follow in the na- 
tural course of things. 

(d) Even good men often bring upon them- 
selves the sufferings which they endure by their 
own fault ; they do not in all cases act according 
to the law of duty and the rules of prudence; 
and in such cases they cannot justly ask to be 
excepted from the common lot of faulty and in- 
judicious men, and must expect to endure the 
unhappy consequences of their errors and follies. 
Christ says, Luke, xvi. 8, "The children of this 
world are wiser in their generation than the 
children of light" — i. e., those whose affections 
are fixed upon the world, the worldly-minded, 
are often more wise with regard to the things of 
time than those whose affections are fixed upon 
heaven are with regard to their heavenly trea- 
sures. The former have more care for their 
welfare in the present life than the latter for 
their blessedness in the world to come. Should 
pious and good men exhibit the same zeal and 
prudence which worldly men exhibit in ma- 
naging their worldly affairs, how much would 
they accomplish for their own advantage and 
that of others ! But since they do not always 
come up to this standard, they must suffer the 
evil consequences of their delinquency. 

(e) Nothing is more common than for us to 
err in our estimate of the moral state and cha- 
racter of other men. All are not pious and vir- 
tuous who appear to be such, and are esteemed 
such by their fellow men. And it is equally 
true that all who are accounted ungodly are not 
the gross criminals and offenders they are some- 
times supposed to be. Vide Luke, xviii.10, 
seq. The character of many a man is made 
out, by those who look upon him with hatred 
or envy, to be much worse than it really is. 
One man commit* «*~-me flagrant, out-breaking 
crime, which brings him into disgrace, and 



draws upon him the contempt of the world ; but 
he may be, at the same time, of a better dispo- 
sition, and less culpable in the sight of God than 
many a reputed saint, who covers over his real 
shame with the hypocritical pretence of virtue. 
Vide John viii. 3, 7, 10, 11. And since this is 
the case, and it is always difficult, and some- 
times impossible for us, who cannot search the 
heart, to determine the true moral character of 
men, and of their actions, we ought to be ex- 
tremely cautious in deciding, whether the good 
or evil which befalls them is deserved or not. 
In most cases, our judgments on this subject 
are certainly very erroneous. 

(/) The afflictions which good men endure 
are beneficial to them and to others, and are pro- 
motive of their highest welfare. They often 
prevent a greater evil which was threatening 
them ; exercise and strengthen their piety, virtue, 
and confidence in God ; increase their zeal in 
the pursuit of holiness, and consequently their 
true happiness ; and thus verify the declaration 
of Paul, Rom. viii. 28, "That all things work 
together for the good of those who are friends 
of God.'' Cf. Rom. v. 3; James, i, 2; Matt, 
v. 10; Heb. xii. 5 — 13, especially, ver. 11, 
which appears to be copied directly from the 
heart of an afflicted saint. " No chastening for 
the present seemeth jo} T ous, but grievous; ne- 
vertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable 
fruits of righteousness to them who are exer- 
cised thereby." Hence the sufferings of good 
men are sometimes called 7tEipa.oj.ioL, because by 
means of them their characters are proved and 
their faith is tried and strengthened. 

(») But there is one other consideration, 
which may remove all our doubts, and make us 
contented when we see the innocent oppressed 
and suffering, and the wicked, who forget God, 
in a prosperous condition — viz., that the present 
life is only the first, imperfect stage of our exist- 
ence — a state of probation,* in which we are to 
prepare for another and more perfect state. This 
consoling doctrine respecting the future life and 
retribution beyond the grave, is one of the chief 
doctrines of Christianity, from which everything 
proceeds, and to which everything is referred ; 
and the writers of the New Testament con- 
stantly make use of it, and seek to comfort the 
pious by the truth that divine justice will not 
be fully exhibited until the future state shall 
commence, and that then the righteous shall be 
richly recompensed, by the exceeding greatness 
of their future reward, for all the evil they have 
suffered. Vide Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 Peter, iv. 
12—14; 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18, and the parable of 
Lazarus, Luke, xvi., especially ver. 25. But 
of those who act here upon the earth from im- 
proper motives, even if they perform actions 
which in themselves are good and praiseworthy, 
Christ says, they have their reward — i. e., they 



252 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



may indeed obtain temporal advantages, but 
God will not reward them with the treasures of 
the future world, Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16. 

SECTION LXXII. 

OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE 
PROVIDENCE. 

I. It is Universal. 

It extends to every creature and to every event 
in the universe — to the small and insignificant, 
as well as to the great and important. The 
Bible everywhere teaches, that the purpose of 
God extends not merely to the whole, and to the 
connexion of all its parts, but to each and every 
part, their relations and their alterations. His 
knowledge must accordingly comprehend the 
smallest and most apparently insignificant cir- 
cumstances. This follows even from the scrip- 
tural idea of creation. Vide s. 46. Cf. Ps. 
cxiii. 5, 6, " He dwelleth on high, and humbleth 
himself to behold the things in heaven and 
in the earth." Ps. cxxxviii. 6, " Though the 
Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the 
lowly." Ps. xxxvi. 6 ; cxlviii. Matt. x. 29, 
30, " Not a sparrow falls to the ground without 
his notice; he numbers the hairs of our heads." 

The doctrine, that the providence of God ex- 
tends even to the minutest things, (providentia 
circa minima,) leads us, when it is properly con- 
sidered, to entertain a very exalted idea of God 
and his attributes, in that he thinks and cares 
for every creature which he has made during 
every moment of its existence, and in every situ- 
ation in which it is placed. But because the 
manner in which the providence of God can ex- 
tend to all individuals is incomprehensible by 
the human understanding, and because men are 
prone to compare God with themselves, this 
doctrine has been often either wholly misunder- 
stood or directly denied. Since it is supposed 
inconsistent with the dignity of princes and the 
great of the earth to concern themselves with 
small affairs, the case is thought to be the same 
with God ; and his honour, it is imagined, is as- 
serted, by denying that he cares for what is 
small and insignificant. This doctrine was ac- 
cordingly either doubted or denied by most even 
of the Grecian philosophers ; and indeed it could 
not appear to them with that degree of clearness 
in which it appears to us, considering that their 
ideas respecting matter and the creation of the 
world, and the relations in which matter and the 
world stand to God, were so imperfect, and so 
wholly unlike those which we have derived from 
the Bible. Vide s. 45, 46. Aristotle main- 
tained that the providence of God extends to 
heavenly things, but not to things on the earth 
(according to Diogenes and Plutarch.) The 
stoics, on the contrary, believed in a providence 



extending to individual things, in a sense, how 
ever, somewhat different from that common with 
us. Vide Seneca, De Providentia, and Cicero, 
De Nat. Deor. ii. 65, 66 ; also Plato, De Rep. 
x., where this doctrine is ably defended. The 
views entertained by some even of the Christian 
fathers on this subject were extremely erroneous. 
Such are those expressed by Hieronymtfs, in 
his Commentary on Hab., where he says, " The 
divine majesty cannot stoop so low as to interest 
itself to know how many vermin are each mo- 
ment produced on the earth, and how many pe- 
rish ; how many flies, fleas, and gnats there are ; 
how many fishes the sea contains ;" &c. His 
opinions, however, were opposed by Gregory of 
Nazianzen, Orat. xvi., and by Chrysostom, in 
his book "De Providentia;" and very rational 
and scriptural opinions on this subject were 
expressed by many other of the ecclesiastical 
fathers. In modern times, the Socinians have 
been accused of denying that providence extends 
to small things ; at least such was said to be the 
opinion expressed in the writings of some of 
the leaders of this sect; but from the obscurity 
of their language, the truth of the accusation 
remains doubtful. Many of the modern scep- 
tics and free-thinkers in England, the Nether- 
lands, France, and Germany, have either doubted 
and denied the providence of God altogether, or 
at least providentia circa minima. So Bayle, 
De la Mettrie, Voltaire, the author of the Sys- 
teme de la Nature, and Frederic II., in the 
works of the philosopher of Sans souci, Letter 
Seventh. 

The doctrine that the providence of God is 
universal, and extends to every individual crea- 
ture, may be confirmed and illustrated by the 
following observations : — 

1. The division of the creatures of God into 
classes and kinds answers no other purpose than 
to assist the feebleness of the human understand- 
ing, which cannot at once survey all things in 
their true connexion. We are therefore com- 
pelled to begin with particulars, and then pro- 
ceed to what is general ; to begin with what is 
more easy, and proceed to what is more diffi- 
cult, in order to render the connexion of the 
whole in some measure comprehensible to our 
minds. But God knows all things immediately 
and at once ; there is no succession in his 
knowledge. Vide s. 22, II. This his know- 
ledge can occasion him, therefore, no trouble or 
expense of time, in which, as is the case with 
us, more important concerns must be neglected 
or deferred. Employment about small things 
is made an objection to men, because they are 
prone to regard trifles as important, (which can 
never be said of God,) and because, on account 
of them, they are prone to neglect what is of 
more value. This danger has been transferred 
very inconsiderately to God. But as nothing 



"WORKS OF GOD. 



253 



is too great for him, so nothing is too small. 
He cannot therefore be distracted, as Frederic 
II. supposed, by being employed about small 
concerns. 

2. The divine purpose must necessarily ex- 
tend to particular things; since otherwise his 
knowledge must be as imperfect and fragmentary 
as our own. From the theory of the omni- 
science and the decrees of God stated in s. 22, 
32, and there proved to be according to scripture 
and reason, it appears, that when God thinks 
of men he does not think of them in general, but 
in particular — of all men individually, and in 
all the various circumstances and conditions in 
which they exist every moment. In this way 
does he think of the whole world, and of all its 
separate parts, from eternity; and similar to 
this is his decree respecting the universe, and 
all its parts. No alteration, therefore, can be 
made in the smallest portion of the world, which 
he did not consider and embrace in his eternal 
decree. 

3. That a human ruler cannot devote equal 
attention to all the objects which are under his 
inspection, and that he is compelled to set some 
of them aside as comparatively unimportant, and 
to give himself little or no concern about them, 
is the consequence of human imperfection. The 
greater the powers of his mind are, the more will 
he be able to occupy himself with particular ob- 
jects, and those of minor consequence; and the 
more he does this, the more just and impartial 
an estimate will he be able to form of the whole, 
and consequently the more wisely and prosper- 
ously will he be able to administer his govern- 
ment. Hence Plato justly remarked, that a per- 
fect ruler must have an equal care for all his 
subjects, and all the offices of state, and allow 
none of them to pass unregarded, lest the whole 
should suffer injury from his neglect of a part. 
Vide Cicero, De Officiis, i. 25. It is this rest- 
less activity, which seizes upon everything, even 
things which would appear insignificant to men 
of common minds, and turns them to its own ac- 
count, which is so universally admired and ap- 
plauded in Caesar, Frederic II., and other distin- 
guished rulers of ancient and modern times. If 
this is true with regard to human rulers, how 
much more so with regard to God in administer- 
ing his government; since he is not wanting 
either in the knowledge, power, or will, requisite 
to the most particular providence. If God did 
not exercise a watchful care over particular per- 
sons and things, how would he be able to secure 
the good of the whole, which is composed of so 
many parts, all intimately connected] The 
whole is only the aggregate of many small 
portions; and the smallest is as inseparably 
connected with the largest, as the links are in a 
chain, or the wheels in a clock. The greatest 
revolutions which have taken place in the 



world — wars, &c, have often proceeded from 
the smallest causes ; from a small spark, great 
conflagrations, which have occasioned a wide- 
spread misery and destruction. In these cases, 
what is small is inseparably connected with 
what is great. The providence of God, there- 
fore, either extends to all things, even to those 
which we denominate small, or there is no di- 
vine providence. From this alternative there is 
no escape. 

4. Men are accustomed to regard many things 
as small, insignificant, useless, and even injuri- 
ous, because they are unable to see their use 
and importance in the connexion of things. 
This is therefore a proof of the weakness of the 
human understanding, and of the great imper- 
fection of human knowledge. But as God 
created zW these things, and continually prolongs 
their existence, he must regard them as useful 
and necessary, and adapted to promote his ends, 
in their connexion with the whole. How then 
can it be inconsistent with his dignity to watch 
over them, and to preserve them ! If it was 
not dishonourable for God to give them exist- 
ence, it cannot be dishonourable for him to pre- 
serve to them the existence he has given. And 
indeed his wisdom, power, and goodness, are 
at least as evident, and often more so, in his 
least, as in his greatest works. Cf. Plato, De 
Repub. x. 

II. It is Benevolent, Wise, Unsearchable. 

This follows incontrovertibly from what has 
already been said, and is perfectly accordant 
with the instructions of the Bible. Vide Ps. 
Ixxiii. 16, civ. 24 ; Job, xxxvi. xxxvii., and espe- 
cially xxxviii. ; Eccl. iii. 11, viii. 17, xi. 5; 
Rom. xi. 33, 34; in which passages the wisdom 
and unsearchableness of God are particularly 
noticed. This benevolent and wise government 
of God is administered in such a wa}' as to 
promote the highest, which is a moral good, 
among all moral beings, in order to prepare 
them to partake of that true and abiding happi- 
ness which can be attained only by holiness; 
since it is principally for moral beings, who are 
more nearly related to God than any other, that 
he has created, preserves, and governs all 
things. 

We must here attend to the question, In what 
relation the miracles so often mentioned in the holy 
scriptures stand to the government of God? We 
must here presuppose what has already been said 
respecting miracles, s. 7, III. ; and proceed there- 
fore directly to consider the philosopho-theolo- 
gical theory respecting miracles, and to shew in 
what manner the objections urged against it may 
be answered. 

1. The changes in the world ordinarily take 
place under the divine government, according to 
the laws or the course of nature, since they are 



254 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



effected through the powers which God has given 
to his creatures, though not without his concur- 
rence, but, on the contrary, under his constant 
guidance and inspection. Now if anything takes 
place which cannot be explained by these laws, 
or which transcends them, it is extraordinary, 
and is regarded as an immediate production of 
God, (in distinction from what takes place ac- 
cording to the course of nature, which is said 
to be a mediate production of God,) and is com- 
monly called a miracle. Since now both of 
these effects are to be ascribed to the providence 
of God, it is divided into ordinary and extraor- 
dinary ; and because these extraordinary effects 
are produced both on the body and on the mind, 
miracles are divided into those which take 
place in the material world, and in the spiritual 
world. 

Note. — Many things produced by the mediate 
agency of God are ascribed to his immediate 
agency, from ignorance of the second causes by 
which his agency is exerted. Hence ignorant 
and inexperienced men are accustomed to see 
more miracles, and to believe in them more rea- 
dily, than learned men, who are better able to 
observe the natural causes by which these effects 
are produced. And this it is which renders 
learned and scientific men often incredulous and 
sceptical upon the subject of miracles. But they 
are apt to presume too much on their own know- 
ledge, and to think they can explain many things 
which they really do not understand. It is 
also a great fault, though a very common one, 
to draw a general principle from what often 
occurs, and to apply it to all cases. Because 
many pretended miracles have been proved false, 
Hume declares that all miracles, those of the 
the Bible not excepted, are such, and thus re- 
jects the most credible testimony. 

2. The possibility of such extraordinary effects 
produced by God is proved in the following 
manner — viz., (a) They are naturally possible — 
i. e., God has power to produce such effects. 
He is indeed himself the author of the laws of 
nature, but he is not bound by them — i. e., he 
is not so bound by them that he must necessa- 
rily act in every case in accordance with them; 
he can alter them, suspend them, or depart from 
them; which, indeed, follows as a just conse- 
quence from his omnipotence, (b) They are 
also morally possible — i. e., they are not incon- 
sistent with the divine wisdom, provided they 
tend to promote some important end, which 
could not, or at least could not so well, be se- 
cured in any other way; nor can it be shewn, 
a priori, that such cases may not occur. Mira- 
cles cannot, then, be shewn to be either morally 
or physically impossible, and to attempt to do- 
this is, as Kant, Fichte, and other modern phi- 
losophers have allowed, most unpardonable pre- 



sumption. Cf. the similar reasoning of the 
stoics, in Cicero, De divin. i. 52, seq. 

3. The proof of the reality of miracles depends 
upon credible testimony. We, as Christians, 
regard the testimony of the holy scriptures as 
credible, the historical truth of the events related 
in them being supposed already established, for 
which cf. s. 7, III. The miracles mentioned in 
the scriptures are all of such a nature as to prove 
the divinity of the truths and doctrines which 
are taught in them, to seal the divine mission of 
Che teacher, in short, to promote various import- 
ant ends, especially those of a moral kind. At 
the time when these miracles were performed, 
when men would believe nothing without signs 
and wonders, they were doubtless of special ser- 
vice, but their utility is by no means confined to 
those particular times, but they must answer the 
same great ends with all who are convinced of 
their historical truth. For if miracles are true, 
God proved by them his unlimited dominion 
over the powers of nature; and to a being who 
proves this we are bound to yield assent and 
render obedience. 

4. Tindal, Hume, Morgan, Voltaire, and 
others, who contend against miracles, bring for- 
ward the a priori objection that miracles would 
presuppose an imperfection in the original plan 
of God. It would be, they say, very unphiloso- 
phical to represent God as a workman who had 
not properly planned or executed his work, and 
who is obliged, when the wheels of the machine- 
ry stop, or the house is ready to fall, himself to 
interpose, and regulate and rectify what is wrong. 
Such ideas, they think, would suit well with 
that early state of society in which Jupiter was 
supposed to examine the vault of heaven, to see 
if it were rent, but are entirely unsuited to our 
enlightened and philosophical age. To this it 
may be answered, 

(a) That miracles, like everything else in the 
world, formed a part of the original plan of God, 
and were embraced in his eternal purpose re- 
specting the world and all its changes. Vide s. 
32. In this purpose, it must have been deter- 
mined that in the course of ordinary events, in 
particular places, and at certain times, miracles 
should take place ; for God must have foreseen 
that some of his plans would either wholly fail, 
Or could not be so well accomplished by the 
ordinary course of events, as by his special in- 
terference. This answer was given by Leibnitz 
and Wolf. 

(b) The contradiction which the human under- 
standing appears to find in miracles is owing to 
the fact that men, from the very constitution of 
their minds, connect together the causes and ef- 
fects of the material world by the idea of neces- 
sity, and cannot do otherwise. But in the view 
of God, who sees all things as they really are, 



WORKS OF GOD. 



255 



there are no necessary effects, even in the mate- 
rial world ; but his will is in all things free, and 
upon his will alone therefore does it depend to 
produce any effect which may be conducive to 
his designs. A miracle now is a new effect 
aside from the usual chain of events, which can- 
not therefore, like ordinary effects, be connected 
with what has preceded and with what follows 
by the law of a sufficient reason, and which we 
are therefore led irresistibly to ascribe to a power 
which has unlimited control over the material 
world, and thus arises the idea of a miracle. 
But still there is no real change in things them- 
selves, and as soon as the miracle ceases they 
proceed as they did before, and are still connect- 
ed together by the rules of the maxim of a suf- 
ficient reason. Thus we see that miracles are 
possible, but we are unable to comprehend how 
they can be performed ; just as we are unable to 
understand how God could create a world from 
nothing. 

5. From these principles it also follows that 
no miracles are wrought, in cases in which the 
designs of God can be fully and in their whole 
extent attained by natural means. And hence 
we may conclude, that miracles are of unfrequent 
occurrence, and that their reality must be attested 
by witnesses who cannot be justly suspected 
either of intentional fraud, or of enthusiasm, 
credulity, or any unintentional self-deception, 
before we can be justified in believing them. It 
cannot be said that God is more glorified by 
miracles than by the common course of nature. 
On the other hand, he is equally glorified, to say 
the least, by the common course of nature, as by 
miracles. In miracles his bare omnipotence be- 
comes more conspicuous, but in the course of na- 
ture, his infinite wisdom and power are alike 
evidenced. The opinion here opposed arises 
from the puerile notion, that it must be more 
difficult and laborious for God to perform a mi- 
racle than to produce, in the ordinary way, the 
natural changes which take place in the world, 
and that the former therefore is more to his glory. 
But to God nothing is difficult, and nothing 
causes him labour. The production of the na- 
tural world, the constitution of its laws, and the 
regulation of its changes, require, in themselves 
considered, as great an exertion of power as the 
working of miracles. 

6. But although the remarks here made are 
true, they by no means justify those interpreters 
who endeavour to explain by natural principles 
events expressly said in the scriptures to be 
miraculous, performed for the attainment of im- 
portant moral ends not otherwise attainable. 
For such an interpretation is inconsistent with 
the authority of the Bible, and indeed, is a di- 
recx impeachment of its truth, and goes to prove 
that the sacred writers, or those who performed 
the pretended rr iracles, were either impostors, 



or themselves deluded fanatics. The doctrine 
of Christ and the apostles is only so far esta- 
blished, as they appeal to miracles. For they 
gave themselves out as extraordinary and imme- 
diate ambassadors of God. But this claim could 
not be proved merely by the internal excellence 
of the doctrines which they taught, and they 
could expect to be credited only when their ex- 
traordinary claims were supported by extraordi- 
nary facts. And it is on account of this intimate 
connexion between the truth of their miracles 
and their character as extraordinary teachers, 
that many who are unwilling to concede the 
latter are disposed to dispute the former. If 
the proof from miracles be once allowed, it 
follows directly that those who performed them 
were extraordinary and immediate messengers 
from God. Vide s. 7, and Introduction, s. 7, 8. 
7. The question is asked, Whether miracles 
occur at the present time, and whether we, in 
accordance with the promises of the New Testa- 
ment, may expect to perform miraculous cures, 
and hope to possess, the gifts of inspiration, di- 
vination, &c. 1 This has been believed by pre- 
tended thaumaturgists, prophets, and enthusiasts 
of every kind, ancient and modern. And many 
also, who cannot be accused of enthusiasm, have 
assented to this opinion. Grotius, for example, 
believed that Christian missionaries might hope 
to perform miracles, and Lavater supposed, that 
any Christian who could firmly believe that God 
would work miracles through him, would be 
able to do what he believed. But if history and 
experience are consulted, we shall soon know 
what to think of the pretended wonder-workers 
since the times of the apostles, and be able to 
put them down either as impostors or as deluded 
fanatics. But does not the New Testament 
afford reason to hope that miraculous powers 
may be continued in the Christian church % No ! 
For (a) these miraculous gifts were by no means 
promised by Christ to all his followers, at all 
times, but only to the apostles and first teachers 
of Christianity, to be used by them in proclaim- 
ing Christian truth, and in establishing the 
Christian church, Mark, xvi. 17, 18, coll. ver. 
15, 16, 20; John, xiv. 12, coll. ver. 11, 13, 14. 
(b) In Eph. iv. 13, seq., Paul teaches what is 
well worthy of notice, that these gifts were in- 
tended only for the first age of the church, and 
would cease when the church had become tho- 
roughly established, when more clear knowledge 
of the truth had been diffused, and the contro- 
versies between Jewish and heathen Christians 
were ended. The same truth is taught in 1 
Cor. xiii. 8; the gift of tongues, &c, it is there 
said, will hereafter cease, (with some reference 
to the present world, though principally to the 
world to come, where these gifts will be wholly 
useless,) but faith, hope, and charity will abide 
(and that in the present world as well as in the 



256 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



future) as long as the church shall continue. 
{c) Add to these the consideration, that it can- 
not be proved that the power of conferring these 
gifts was granted to any besides the apostles, 
(cf. Acts, viii. 14 — 17,) and that after the death 
of the apostles and their immediate successors 
in the Christian c«hurch, these gifts would there- 
fore cease, as a matter of course. 

On this subject, cf. Toellner, Vermishchte 
Aufsatze, th. ii. Abhandl. 2, Warum Gott nicht 
iibernaturlich thut, was natiirlich geschehen 
kann. Ammon, De notione miraculi; Gottingse, 
1795, 4to. Also the work entitled, Betracht- 
ungen iiber den Endzweck der Wunderwerke, 
und. die Kraft des Wunderglaubens in unsern 
Tagen ; Berlin, 1777, 8vo; and the works occa- 
sioned by the opinion of Lavater and others ; 
Middleton's Essay on Miraculous Gifts after 
the Death of the Apostles ; F. T. Riihl, Werth 
der Behauptungen Jesu, und seiner Apostel ; 
Leipzig, 1791, 8vo; Koppen, Die Bibel ein 
Werk der gottlichen Weisheit. One of the latest 
works in opposition to miracles is entitled, De 
miraculis enchiridion, a plfilosopho Theologis 
exhibitum; Zwickau, 1805, 8vo, — a prejudiced 
and partial work. Vide the Review in the Jen. 
Lit. Zeit. for 1806, No. 168. 

Note.— -In respect to its practical influence, 
the doctrine of the providence of God is one of 
the first importance. In addition to the parti- 
culars enumerated s. 67, I., Note 2, the religious 
teacher, in his practical instructions, should in- 
sist upon the following points, which are made 
prominent in the holy scriptures, where we may 
see an example of the proper mode of exhibit- 
ing them. 

(a) He should shew, that we ought never to 
stop with the second causes through which our 
blessings come to us, or by which the effects 
which we witness are accomplished, but should 
always go back to God as the first cause, and 
sincerely love and honour him, as the author of 
every good gift. Vide James, i. 17 ; iv. 13, 15. 
Instead of dwelling upon the second causes by 
which events are brought about, and wholly 
overlooking the agency of God, (the common 
method of modern historians,) the sacred his- 
torians refer everything to God, and hence they 
so frequently clash with the views and feelings 
of those who look upon the world from a dif- 
ferent and lower point of view. Vide s. 70, 
II. 2. 

(b) If we would enjoy the blessings, whether 
temporal or spiritual, which are designed for us, 
and promised to us by God, we must, on our 
part, fulfil the conditions to the performance of 
which he has annexed this enjoyment. Cf. s. 
71, II. Morus, p. 83, s. 8. 

(c) Natural evils and calamities are under the 



control of an all-wise and oenevolent Being, and 
are intended to lead us to repent of our sins, and 
lead holy lives, or to confirm and strengthen us 
in holiness, and in every way to contribute to 
our advantage. Cf. s. 71, II. 2. 

(d) We should feel especially indebted to 
God for any holiness or moral rectitude which 
we may perceive in ourselves. By cherishing 
the feeling that whatever is good in us is the 
gift of God, we shall be kept from that selfish 
blindness and pride which would spring from 
the thought that we ourselves were the authors 
of it. God gave us our moral nature, and to 
him we owe all the powers which we possess, 
and all the means, in the use of which we attain 
to holiness. Our faults and crimes, on the con- 
trary, we must charge wholly to ourselves, and 
never to God. Cf. James, i. 13 — 15; 1 Cor 
iv. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 11; Phil. ii. 13. 

(e) God employs all his creatures as instru- 
ments for the promotion of his own purposes, 
and hence they are called (e. g., Ps. ciii.) his 
servants, his messengers, who do his will. But 
to none of the creatures who inhabit his foot- 
stool, has God assigned so large a sphere of 
action, and none does he so much employ in the 
accomplishment of his most important purposes, 
as man, and man is what he is through the 
moral nature which God has given him, and 
which he constantly preserves in exercise. In 
this his moral nature man resembles God, and 
can continually become more and more like him, 
yea, in this he is related to him, and partakes 
of the divine nature. Every man, in every sta- 
tion and calling in life, is employed by God as 
an instrument for the attainment of important 
ends. The more faithfully a man performs all 
the duties of his station, however inferior it may 
be, and especially the more he labours after true 
holiness, the more will his life be conformed to 
the divine will, and answer the ends for which 
he is employed. And one who fails to dis- 
charge these duties, and is unprofitable in the 
service of God, proves that he mistakes his own 
true worth and dignity. It is therefore our 
highest duty to exert ourselves, to the utmost 
of our powers, to do good in all the relations in 
which we stand under the government of God, 
and especially to promote holiness in ourselves 
and others. Cf. s. 69, ad finem, and s. 70, II. 
2. Morus, p. 78, s. 4. 

As Christians, however, we should exercise 
these feelings, and yield this obedience, not to 
God only, but also to Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God. He counsels and guides all who believe 
in him ; they ought therefore to imitate and fol- 
low him. It is the peculiarity of the Christian 
system to require of us that we should do every- 
thing iv ovouati XpttfT'oy. 



BOOK II 



DOCTRINE OF MAN 



S3 



y2 



(257) 



ON THE PLAN, ORDER, AND SUCCESSION OF TOPICS 
IN THE SECOND BOOK. 



This Book is properly denominated, theological Anthropology, because it contains the 
doctrine respecting man, and his relation to God. In respect to the order and succession 
in whic' the various topics belonging to this doctrine are treated, there is a great 
diversity n the systems of theology, both ancient and modern. The particular order in 
which doctrines are treated is, indeed, of no great importance, provided only that those 
doctrines are placed first which constitute the basis of those which follow, or which 
contribute essentially to the illustration of them. To place the doctrine respecting 
Christ — e. g. respecting his person, the redemption effected through him, &c. — at the 
very introduction of the system, (as some have done,) is certainly very preposterous, 
since a great deal in these doctrines cannot be placed in the proper light until the 
scriptural doctrines of the depravity of man, of sin, and the punishment of sin, have 
been previously illustrated. The plan adopted by Morus, of placing the latter doctrines 
first, has therefore greatly the advantage over the other. Still, on any method which 
may be adopted, there will always be found difficulties and imperfections. Some have 
made a merit of deviating from the method generally pursued in systems of theology, 
of inventing a method wholly new, and especially of giving new titles to the various 
divisions of the subject. But no new land is won for the science itself by means of 
these innovations; and, on the contrary, the study of it is rendered very perplexed to 
beginners, and they are compelled, whenever they take a new system in hand, to begin 
as it were anew, and to learn a new language. 

We adopt the following order — viz., (a) Man may be considered in his former or 
original condition — the state of innocence, and of this an account has already been given 
in Book I. s. 53 — 57. Further, man may be considered (b) in his present state — that 
in which he is, since the state of innocence has ceased. In this connexion belong the 
doctrines respecting sin, its origin, the various kinds of sin, and its consequences ; Art. 
ix. s. 73 — 87, inclusive. Finally, man may be considered (c) in that better state to 
which he is restored. Here the whole doctrine respecting the redemption of the human 
race belongs. (1) Be gratia Dei salutari, — the gracious institutes which God has 
established to promote the holiness and happiness of men, — especially those established 
in and through Christ, — the different states of Christ, — his person, his work, and the 
salutary consequences of it to the human race; Art. x. s. 88 — 120, inclusive. (2) On 
the conditions (repentance and faith) on which we can obtain the blessedness promised 
to Christians by God; Art. xi. s. 121 — 128, inclusive. (3) On the manner in which 
God aids those who believe in Christ, and enables them to fulfil the prescribed condi- 
tions, or, respecting divine influences and the means of grace; Art. xii. s. 129 — 133, 
inclusive. (4) On the Christian community, or the church; Art. xiii. s. 134 — 136. 

(5) On Baptism and the Lord's Supper, or the sacraments; Art. xiv. s. 137 — 146. 

(6) On the passage of man to another world, and his state in it, — of death, the immor- 
tality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the day of judgment, the end of the 
world, and future happiness and misery; Art. xv. s. 147 — 160. 



(258) 



BOOK II. 



DOCTRINE OF MAN 



PART I.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT 
BY THE FALL, 



ARTICLE IX. 



OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 



SECTION LXXIII. 

WHAT IS MEANT BY SIN; THE DIFFERENT WORDS 
USED IN THE BIBLE TO DENOTE SIN, AND THE 
MEANING OF THEM. 

I. Definition of Sin. 

%£^TN, understood objectively, 
and taken in its wider sense, 
is, any deviation from the law 
of God, or, ivkat is not right, 
according to the divine law; 
what is opposed to the law. 
In the language of jurists, a 
deviation from the law is called a 
crime, (Germ. Verbrechen, crimen;) 
in theology, and when the concerns 
of religion are made the topics of dis- 
course — that is, when men are consi- 
dered in their relation to God, it is 
called sin; and it is an advantage which the 
German language [and also the English] pos- 
sesses, that it is able to designate this particu- 
lar form of transgression by an appropriate 
word. Sin, therefore, properly speaking, is a 
deviation from the divine law, or, according to 
the scripture phraseology, what is not xata, ?b 
$£%vjua tov ®sov. This wor^ is always used 
with reference to God, as Legislator; and be- 
cause the Bible, in entire conformity with ex- 
perience, regards all men in their present condi- 
tion as transgressors of the divine law, it calls 
them sinners, Rom. iii. 9, 23, 24. 

But would we define subjectively that act by 
which one becomes a sinner, or punishable, we 
might say, sin is a free act, which is op>posed to 




the divine law, or which deviates from it. Here 
it must be remarked, 

(a) That in order for an action to be imputed 
to any one as sinful, it must be a free action ; 
for whenever a man acts by compulsion, and it 
does not depend upon himself either to perform 
or omit the action, it cannot be imputed to him 
as sin ; the consideration of which will be re- 
sumed in s. 81. 

(b) Properly speaking, it is the law which 
makes sin what it is. All morality proceeds 
from the law; and where there is no divine 
law, there is no sin. This is taught by Paul, 
Rom. iv. 15, ov ovx fWt v6[io$, ovbh rtapa^acts 
(hit). Were there no law given, the actions 
now denominated sins (e. g., licentiousness, 
theft, murder,) while they must still be regarded 
as foolish and injurious, and be called evils, 
(Germ. Uebel,) could no longer be denominated 
sins. Wild beasts often despoil and destroy 
other beasts and human beings. This is an 
evil, and has injurious consequences, even for 
the beasts themselves; they are ensnared, and 
hunted down. But what they do is not sin, 
because they have no law given them ; and no 
reasonable man would call such things in brutes 
sins, or seriously affirm that a beast had sinned. 
Nor is even the word crime applied to their out- 
rages, because they are exempt alike from hu- 
man and divine laws. 

By law is meant, the precept of a ruler, accom- 
panied with comminutions ; and by a ruler is 
meant one who has the right to prescribe rules 
of acting to others, and to connect these rules 
with threatenings. Commarids and laws are two 
different things. In every law there is a com- 
mand, but every command is not a law. A 
command must be rightful in order to be a law ; 
the preceptor must be entitled to give commands, 
and those to whom they are given must be 
bound to obey ; and on these conditions only 

C259) 



«50 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



does a command become a law. Hence the de- 
mand of the robber to give him oar property, 
with the threat which he annexes, that he will 
murder us if we refuse, is no law. The laws 
of God are made known to us partly through 
nature, and partly by immediate revelation 
through the holy scriptures. The latter are de- 
signed to renew, impress, confirm, illustrate, 
and enlarge or complete the law of nature. God 
has thus, both by the works of nature and by 
the doctrines contained in the holy scriptures, 
given us information respecting his designs, as 
his will respecting men and a rule for them, to 
which they should continually have regard, and 
according to which they should regulate their 
conduct. Morus, p. 106, n. 3, 4. 

II. Scriptural Terms for Sin. 

1. The most common word for sin is the He- 
brew rwi, generally rendered by the Grecian 
Jews afiaptia.. Both of these words are used 
in various senses. 

(a) The Hebrew wan signifies literally to de- 
viate from one's way, to slip aside — a meaning 
which it has among the Arabians. Hence to 
fail of one's end, to see his design frustrated, Job, 
v. 24 ; Proverbs, x. 2. In the same way are 
the words afiapifdvsov and fyiaptCa employed by 
the Greeks in reference to those whose expecta- 
tion is disappointed, who lose, or are deprived 
of something, who miss their aim, and come 
short. Thus, e. g., Xenophon speaks of those 
a^apt dvowt?s$ trj$ j3ou^tf£cos, whose counsel was 
frustrated ; and even in Homer we find the 
phrase d^napT'jjtfaa&ar tijs ortcort^, to be deprived 
of sight. In the Iliad (xxiv. 68) he says, with 
regard to Hector, that he never suffered the gods 
to want for offerings worthy of their accept- 
ance — 

ovre (j>i\o)v fifiapTave Sujpcov. 

Hence (6) these words are used figuratively, 
and are transferred to the soul, and denote the 
faults and defects of the understanding and of 
the will, and also of the actions; of the latter 
more frequently, though sometimes of the for- 
mer — e. g., John, viii. 46, i%iyx^v rtspi auap- 
lia$, erroris convincere, and John, xvi. 8, 9, where 
dju.apT't/'a signifies, delusion, blindness of the under- 
standing. More commonly, however, it is used 
with reference to the will and the actions, and 
denotes every deviation from the divine law in 
willing and acting. 'H d/iapWa, therefore, often 
signifies, sometimes every transgression of a 
grave character, and sometimes, in general, im- 
piety, profanitas, irreligion. Thus the heathen 
were denominated by the Jews, dfiapi'wW, 
O'WRan, in opposition to themselves, the gens 
sancta. In Heb. x. 26, afiaptuviw signifies to 
apostatize from the Christian faith. In Romans, 
vii. 9, Paul uses dpaptiu to denote the propen- 



sity to sin (Germ. Hang zur Siinde) which is 
everywhere observed in man, and which is na- 
tural to him. [Cf. Usteri, Entwickelung des 
Paulinischen LehrbegrifFs, Zweiter und Dritter 
Theil.— Tr.] 

(c) This, and all the words which signify 
sin, are often used by the Hebrews and Hellen- 
ists to denote the punishment of sin — e. g., 
Isaiah, liii. ; 2 Kings, vii. 9, seq. 

(d) They also signify a sin-offering — e. g., 
Ps. xl. 7; 2 Cor. v. 21, ^vota. rtspi afiaptia$. 

2. Besides this word, there are many others 
by which the idea of sin is expressed by the 
Hebrews and Greeks. Among these are, 

(a) In Hebrew, pp, guilt (reatus), sin, Psalm 
lix. 5; frequently rendered in the Septuagint 
d8lx^/xa, or ahixla. jjBfo, strictly, apostasy from 
the true God, or rebellion against him. [The 
word mn, from -iid, has the same signification. — 
Tr.] Forsaking the worship of Jehovah for 
that of idols, and every deliberate transgression 
of the divine law, were justly regarded as rebel- 
lion against God, and so called by this name, 
2 Kings, viii. 10; Jer. iii. 13. yws is therefore 
a stronger word than nxsn. jjuh is used to de- 
note the injustice of judges, when they lose sight 
of what is just (prx), and decide unjustly and 
partially, Job, ix. 24; Ezek. vii. 11 ; hence ap- 
plied to any misdeed or wickedness, by which 
the desert of punishment is incurred, Psa. v. 5. 
Hence yv'n signifies, one guilty, {reus, damna- 
tus,) sensuforensi. pen is rendered in the Sep- 
tuagint by the words a&ixla, a^ejBsta, x. i. "k. 
DK'M, guilt, guiltiness, rmtr, or W, error, mis- 
take, transgression, Psa. xix. 13. Sept. jtar 
paHtcofia. Classical Greek, H\dvrj. 

(b) In the New Testament, the words which 
denote sin are mostly taken from the Septua- 
gint, where they are used interchangeably the 
one for the other. Among these are rtapcwcoij, 
Hebrews, ii. 2; — rtapaj3autj, Romans, iv. 15; — 
a&ixla and dS^'x^a, (like ajiap'tia, and dfidpt^ixa,) 
Romans, i. 18 ; vi. 13 ; — 6^st%^fia, Matt. vi. 12. 
(The Hebrews often represent sins under the 
image of debts, which must either be remitted ox 
paid.) Hapa7tT?u>ua, Matt. vi. 14, also used to 
signify apostasy from religion, Rom. xi. 12; 
dyvorj/xa, a sin committed through ignorance, er- 
ratum, Heb. ix. 7. (So Aquila renders py, Lev. 
xxvi. 39, by dyvouv so also iOjdvr[. 'Avo^ta, 
illegality, transgression of the law, or sin, Matt, 
vii. 23. It is also sometimes used in the sense 
of irreligion, heathenism, since v6[xo$ often sig- 
nifies the religion revealed by God. Hence the 
heathen are called avofioo, Rom. ii. 12; vi. 19. 
Cf. dcf£j3£ta, a<3£J3r t s. In the text, 1 John, iii. 4, 
rj d/xapT'ia iativ yj avo/xla, it is not the intention 
of the writer to give a logical definition of sin, but 
rather to oppose those deceivers who maintained 
that a sinful life was allowable. The meaning 
of the text is as follows : " Whoever leads a 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



261 



Sinful life, acts in opposition to the precepts of 
the divine law ; for every sin is against the di- 
vine law, (which commands us to live holy and 
without sin. Yidever. 3.)" 

In the discussion here following of the doc- 
trine respecting sin, this order will be observed 
—viz., (1) The origin of sin among men, or the 
sin of our first parents, and the moral corruption 
of human nature, derived, according to the 
scriptures, from them, will be first considered, 
s. 74 — 80. (2) The origin and nature of the 
particular sinful actions of men, which have 
their ground in that moral depravity, together 
with the different kinds and divisions of these 
actions, s. 81 — 85. (3) The punishment of sin, 
as learned from reason and revelation, s. 86, 87. 

SECTION LXXIV. 

WHAT DOES REASON, WITHOUT THE USE OF THE 
BIBLE, TEACH US RESPECTING THE SINFUL 
STATE OF MAN, AND THE ORIGIN OF IT 1 AND 
HOW FAR DO THE RESULTS OF REASON ON THIS 
SUBJECT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE 1 

I. Opinions of Heathen Philosophers. 

The fact that human nature is imperfect, and 
has a morally defective constitution, shewing 
itself in the earliest youth, was observed and 
conceded by most of the ancient heathen philo- 
sophers ; and the fact is so obvious, and so con- 
formed to experience, that it could hardly have 
been otherwise. It was formerly observed, as 
it is now, that man has more inclination to im- 
morality and sin than to innocence, holiness, 
and moral purity. A perpetual conflict was 
seen to exist in man, from his youth up, between 
reason and sense — a contest in which man 
oftener sided with the latter than with the 
former, and thus made himself unhappy. It 
was seen that man, even when enjoying the best 
moral instruction, and when possessed of a full 
conviction of the justice of the requisitions of 
the moral law, still often acted immorally; and 
this, even when perfectly convinced that in so 
doing he did wrong; and that he was thus in a 
state extremely wretched. Vide Morus, p. 109, 
s. 3. Now, if it was with man as it should be, 
he would suffer his will to be at once determined 
by what his understanding perceived to be true 
and good, and would regulate his conduct ac- 
cordingly. That this is not so, experience suf- 
ficiently teaches. It is false, therefore, to assert 
that everything depends upon instruction, and 
that if the mind were only enlightened with re- 
gard to duty, the will would soon follow. So 
it should be, but so it is not; and it is the great- 
est of all moral problems, how to render the will 
obedient to the dictates of the understanding. 

These things having been observed in ancient 
times, the writings of the pagan philosophe/s a."? 



full of complaints over the moral corruption of 
man. Socrates is said by Plato (De Repub.) to 
have complained that all nations, even the most 
cultivated, and those advanced farthest in intel- 
ligence and knowledge, were yet so depraved 
that no human discovery or art sufficed to remove 
the disorder. The writings of Plato, Aristotle, 
and Cicero, are full of expressions of the same 
kind. Aristotle called this evil cvyysvis, Ethic, 
ad Nicom. iii. 15. Plato says in his Meno, that 
children by nature (fyvat t) are not good ; for in 
that case, says he, ironically, it would only be 
necessary to shut them up, in order to keep them 
good. He saw that it was a mistake to suppose 
that man is made wicked merely by education, 
or that he becomes so merely by the imitation 
of bad examples. Cicero says, in his Tusculan 
Questions (iii. 1), Simulac editi in lucem ei sus- 
cepti sumus, in omni continuo pravitale, ei in 
summa opiniunum perversitate, versamur: ut 
poene cum lacle nutricis err or em suxisse vide- 
amur. De Amicit. (c. 24,) Multis signis natura 
declarat quid velit: obsurdescimus tamen nescio 
quomodo ; nee ea quae ah ea monemur, audimus — 
our will'does not follow what our understanding, 
approves as right and good. In this connexion 
we may cite the common declaration, Nitiuwr 
in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata ,• and that 
of Ovid, (Metam. vii. 18, seq.) 

Si possem, sanior essem. 
Sed trahit invitum nova vis ; aliudque cupido, 
Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora proboque, 
Deteriora sequor. 

[Very remarkable are the words of Seneca, in 
his work Be dementia, 1. i. c. 6 : — " Quotus 
quisque ex qusestoribus est, qui non ea ipsa lege 
teneatur, qua quaerit] Quotus quisque accusa- 
tor, vacat culpa ] Et nescio, an nemo ad dandam 
veniam difncilior sit, quam qui illam petere sse- 
pius meruit. Peccavimus omnes, alii gravia, 
alii leviora; alii ex destinato, alii forte impulsi, 
aut aliena nequitia ablati; alii in bonis consiliis 
parum fortiter stetimus, et innocentiam invite ac 
renitentes perdidimus. Nee delinquimus tan- 
tum, sed usque ad extremum a?vi delinquents. " 
Compare with this what he says in his Treatise 
De Ira, (ii. 8,) " Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena 
sunt. Plus committitur quam quod possit coer- 
citione sanari. Certatur ingenti quodam nequi- 
tiae certamine. Major quotidie peccandi cupi- 
ditas, minor verecundia est. Nee furtiva jam 
scelera sunt; praeter oculos eunt; adeoque in 
publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium pec- 
toribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara, sed nulla 
sit." Cf. also the declaration of Sopater, 
csv/xfyvtov dv^pcoTtotj to a/xaptdvsiv. For numer- 
ous other passages of similar import, the student 
may consult Tlioluck, Lehre von der Siinde, s. 
48, 49; 72, 73; and the works commended by 
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 359. For the opinions of 



*62 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the later Jews, vide Eisenmenger, Entdecktes 
Judenthum, theil. ii. s. 80, f. — Tr.] 

All this is in perfect accordance with the de- 
clarations of the sacred writers, and especially 
with that of Paul, Rom. vii. 15, "For that which 
I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do 
not; but what I hate, that do I." It is also in 
accordance with the experience of every indivi- 
dual. And yet there have been philosophers, 
especially in modern times, who have denied 
the truth of such representations, and have at- 
tempted to demonstrate the contrary, and who 
have sought to found new systems of education 
upon their peculiar views respecting the charac- 
ter of man. 

As to the real causes of this depravity, which 
was so universally seen and acknowledged, the 
opinions were very various. 

(1) Men in the earliest times, and among the 
rude heathen nations, being left to themselves, 
either neglected all reflection upon this subject, 
or invented various philosophemes or narrations, 
in order to facilitate to themselves the under- 
standing of the origin and diffusion of this evil. 
In all of them, however, it was assumed ^hat the 
human race was originally better than after- 
wards, and that either by slow degrees, or sud- 
denly and at once, it became corrupt. As soon 
as men begin to reflect upon God and them- 
selves, they exhibit almost universally the feel- 
ing, that it is necessar}^ to suppose that mankind 
was originally in a better condition ; nor can this 
feeling be obliterated by any subtle reasoning. 
Cf. s. 56. 

(2) The ancient Grecian philosophers adopted 
in part the fables and narratives which they 
found already existing; but they also undertook 
to investigate the first origin of evil more parti- 
cularly. In doing this, they soon came to the 
result, (which indeed had been already observed 
by the authors of those narratives,) that the de- 
fective constitution of man consisted in the un- 
due power of sense (Sinnlichkeit) , and that this 
had its seat in the body. Paul distinguishes in 
man the vouog h tol$ jxi%^6iv (i. e., iv aapxl, ver. 
18), and the vofios tov voo<;. The former, he 
says, avtiGT? pansys? at voua vaoj, xal aizua\u>fi£s i 
fie fQ voua tqs d^apr'taj, Rom. vii. 23. We 
have thus a dictamen sensuum, and a dictamen 
rationis. So Araspas in Xenophon distinguishes 
in every man an dya^y) and a rtovrpa ^vzr n Cyrop. 
vi. 21 ; and Plato makes mention of the toyiati- 
xbv xrfi ^vzv? ana * of the aXoyimfixov or srti^auo?- 
tixdv. These Grecian philosophers proceeded 
on the supposition, that there are two equally 
eternal and original principles, God and matter. 
The former they supposed to be the rational, 
thinking principle, and the origin of all good, 
physical and moral ; the latter, the irrational 
principle, and the cause of all evil. Vide s. 46, 
II. To the former principle they supposed the 



rational soul of man belongs, and his body to 
the second ; and as his body consists of matter, 
so his soul is a part of the divine nature, and a 
pure effluence from the same. 

They were too prone, under the influence of 
these views, to overlook the advantages which 
the human soul derives from its connexion with 
the body — advantages which could not otherwise 
exist, and to regard the body too much as a pri- 
son, in which the soul is impaled. So taught 
the Persians, and most of the oriental philoso- 
phers, [vide Neander's account of the Gnostic 
Systems;] so Pythagoras and Plato, especially 
in Timaeus ; so Aristotle, the stoics, and theii 
followers. In conformity with these views, 
Socrates and Plato always gave the advice, 
Xtopi^tLv tbj fxaXiata, a.7io tov 6u>fx.a?o$ tT k v ^vx^ v ' 
They believed, however, that after death the 
soul would be reunited with God, after having 
undergone various degrees of cleansing and pu- 
rification from the matter cleaving to it; re- 
specting which, vide s. 150, II. [This purifi- 
cation was the intent of the transmigration of 
souls (metempsychosis) — a doctrine held in all 
the religions of the East, and in that also of an- 
cient Egypt. The soul, it was supposed, would 
be purified by the sufferings endured in wander- 
ing through uncongenial matter, and be at length 
prepared to merge into the pure fountain from 
which it originally emanated. For some valu- 
able remarks on this, and other religious ideas 
and observances in the East, vide Schlegel, 
Philosophie der Geschichte. — Tr.] 

(3) The account which the holy scriptures 
give of the origin of sin is as follows : — " God 
made man, not only as to his soul, but his body 
also; and both pure and without sin; by a 
daring transgression, however, the nature of 
man is changed, and from being pure and im- 
mortal, has become defective and mortal. This, 
however, is overruled by God, for our good, by 
means of Jesus Christ, the Restorer of the 
human race." 

\_Note. — The traditions of many of the Ori- 
ental nations correspond remarkably with the 
narrative in Genesis, and confirm its truth. 
This is the case, especially, with the doctrine 
of Zoroaster, which so strikingly agrees with 
that of Moses as to indicate a common source 
in the historic fact of an original temptation and 
fall. According to Zoroaster, the first human 
pair were offered heaven on condition of virtue, 
and of refraining from homage to the Devjs — the 
demons of the Persian mythology. For some 
time they complied with these conditions; but 
at length Ahriman (Satan) caused the thought 
to be infused into their minds by a Dew, that he 
was the creator of the world. They believed 
this lie, and so became, like Ahriman, evil and 
unhappy. On one occasion they went out upon 
a hunting excursion, and found a wild goat, and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



263 



tasted its milk, which was sweet to their taste, 
and reviving, but injurious to their body. The 
Dew then offered them fruit, which they ate, 
and in consequence were still more injured, and 
stripped of their remaining blessings. Vide 
Kleuker, Zend-Avesta, 3 thl. s. 84, if. Cf. 
Schlegel, Philos. der Geschichte, b. i. — Tr.] 

II. Results of independent Reason and Observation. 

If, in investigating the origin and causes of 
this evil, we disregard all authority, even that 
of the holy scriptures, and proceed solely from 
those considerations to which experience con- 
ducts us, we arrive at the following results, 
which are not indeed entirely satisfactory, but 
which yet somewhat illustrate this subject, and 
therefore may be useful to those to whom the 
instruction of the young is committed. 

It may be remarked in general, that the phi- 
losopher, as such, can assign no other ground 
than that man is a limited being, and conse- 
quently can err. The nature of this limitation 
and liability to sin is now to be more closely 
examined. Man has a twofold nature, one part 
of which is rational and moral, (vovs,) by means 
of which he can act with reference to ends, and 
possesses understanding and free-will ; the other 
part of which is sensuous, (sinnlich,} and con- 
sists of desires and appetites, (^vxr t .) By the 
former, he belongs to the world of spirit ; by the 
latter, to that of sense. He is therefore to be 
regarded as a being compounded of reason and 
sense, (Germ, vcrnunfti g-sinnliches Wesen.) In 
this way, man is distinguished from the brute, 
which has indeed sense, but no rational or moral 
nature. This in man should be the ruling poiver, 
the other subject to this ; and then only is man 
free when he acts independently of the impulses 
of his lower nature, and obeys the voice of the 
moral law, uttered so imperatively within him. 
But in man in his present state we notice a con- 
tinual conflict between these two natures — a 
conflict which cannot be explained away by any 
subtleties. This conflict rests upon the dis- 
tinction between these two dissimilar natures 
in man, and is the immediate result of their 
connexion in human beings, according to their 
present constitution. 

Beyond this, the essential nature of man, the 
mere philosopher cannot go, in his inquiries 
after the causes of sin ; and the fact of a parti- 
cular corruption of our nature, ox of the invisible 
agency of evil spirits, cannot be resorted to by 
him to account for the existing evil. In short, 
the mere philosopher who is unacquainted with 
what the scriptures have taught on this subject, 
or who will make no use of their instructions, 
cannot proceed from facts, because these are 
either unknown to him, or doubtful and uncer- 
tain. Hence the truth of what many of the old 
theologians have said, that the fact of a better 



state of human nature depends for its proof upon 
the holy scriptures ; and that neither that state, 
nor the fall which succeeded it, can be demon- 
strated from mere reason. But we are now ex- 
hibiting those results only tc which unassisted 
reason would arrive. 

In noticing the defects and imperfections 
which result from the connexion of these two 
natures in man, the many advantages which 
also spring from it ought not to be overlooked. 
It should be remembered that man could never 
have been what he is, if this constitution were 
different. Many possesses various faculties, 
which have their ground in this constitution, 
which may indeed, and actually do, mislead 
him into many faults and errors, but which are 
in themselves good, and, when rightly culti- 
vated and employed, bring him great advantage. 
Such are self-love, so deeply implanted in the 
human breast, (hence the instinct for self-pre- 
servation and for personal improvement,) the 
love of honour, the tendency to imitate, and others, 
which are in themselves good, and only need to 
be kept under the control of reason, and pro- 
perly directed to the ends for which they were 
given. 

After these remarks, we come now to inquire 
after the more immediate causes, from which 
the prevailing power of sense, and the inability 
of reason to control it, are to be explained. We 
design in this place to give only the result of 
human observation and experience, which will 
be very inadequate to the full explanation of this 
subject. We shall afterwards exhibit the doc- 
trine of the scriptures, and inquire how far it 
agrees with these results. These causes are to 
be found partly in the strength of the feelings 
belonging to human nature, partly in the man- 
ner in which the powers of the human soul de- 
velop themselves, and partly in the external cir- 
cumstances in which this development proceeds. 

(1) The feelings of man are much stronger 
than those ideas of his mind which have their 
foundation in his reason; and the mere philo- 
sopher, who receives no light from revelation, 
cannot tell that this has not always v been the 
fact with man. For he cannot conclude with 
any certainty, from his mere reason, that human 
nature was originally in a better state than that 
in which he now finds it; he must take man as 
he finds him, and on the supposition, which he 
has no means of refuting, that he was always 
the same. In general, the end of this constitu- 
tion of our nature would seem to be, to guard 
against insen^ihility and inactivity. For the 
mere motives of reason would act far too feebly 
and slowly ; and except for this influence of the 
feelings, many actions which are useful and ne- 
cessary for our own good and that of others 
would remain undone. And so it is found, that 
men of a cold and phlegmatic temperament, 



£64 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



who have Lt little feeling- and excitability, 
though they may have good heads and benevo- 
lent hearts, are generally indolent, irresolute, 
and inactive, and accomplish very little. It is 
often the case, indeed, that a man suffers him- 
self to be carried away by his feelings, and re- 
solves and acts without regard to consequences. 
The advantages of this constitution must, how- 
ever, be greater than the disadvantages, because 
it is so established by God. But on this sub- 
ject much may be said, without leading to any 
satisfactory conclusion. This visible inordi- 
nateness of one portion of our nature can hardly 
be made to harmonize with our conceptions of 
the divine attributes. But beyond this the phi- 
losopher as such cannot go. 

(2) In the earlier years of our life, before we 
can rightly use our reason, we have no other 
rule for desiring or avoiding- anything than our 
feelings. And on this account, that they have 
no maturity of reason, children and minors can- 
not be left to themselves, but need to be guided 
and governed by others. We thus become ac- 
customed from our youth up to desire those 
things which excite agreeable sensations in us, 
and to shun those things which have an oppo- 
site effect. Now the kind of agreeable sensa- 
tions with which man is earliest acquainted is 
that which arises from the gratification of his 
animal desires. For in the earliest years of his 
life, man, having- not yet attained the full use 
of his rational faculties, has no taste for the 
more pure and spiritual joys, which are above 
sense, and which are attendant only on the 
knowledge of the truth, and holiness of heart 
and life. When now, after a long time, and by 
slow degrees, man has attained to the full use 
and the maturity of his rational faculties, he has 
for a long time been habituated, even from his 
youth, to will and act according to his feelings 
and the impulses of sense, without duly consult- 
ing reason, and carefully weighing everything 
by his understanding. This long practice has 
produced in him a habit, and it is now hard for 
him to break this habit, and to acquire, in place 
of it, the. habit of rational consideration before 
action. Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit 
odorem testa diu. Very true, therefore, is the 
remark of Tacitus (Vita Agricol. c. iii.), " that 
human weakness is of such a nature, that the 
remedies do not act as efficiently as the dis- 
ease." 

From these remarks we draw the following 
important inference : that we should endeavour, 
as early as possible, to awaken, cherish, and 
develop the moral sense in the youthful heart. 
And there is no way for us to do this so suc- 
cessfully as by means of religion. Vide Intro- 
duction, s. 2. It is there/ore one of the most 
perverse and injurious maxims to say that young 
children should not have religion taught them. 



The evil effects resulting from this maxim have 
been deeply felt in our age. 

(3) The first knowledge of man is derived 
from his senses ; at first, he can acquire infor 
mation in no other way than from sensible ob 
jects. The senses must, in all cases, serve as 
the vehicle of knowledge; and they are often 
misemployed. Since now, from the nature of 
the case, man must, from his earliest youth, be 
so familiar with visible and sensible objects, it 
is not strange that he should be too little affected 
by the instructions given him respecting objects 
not cognizable by the senses, and especially re- 
specting God, the Invisible; and that he should 
be so indifferent to the motives to love him, and 
from love to obey him. The remark, 1 John, 
iv. 20, " he that loveth not his brother, whom 
he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he 
hath not seen," is therefore psychologically 
true. If we see a man who has no true love 
to his neighbour whom he hath seen, we may 
safely conclude that he has no love for the 
invisible God. Hence we may explain the 
natural coldness of the carnal mind to God, 
and everything which belongs to the moral 
and spiritual world ; and hence too we may de- 
rive the duty of opposing this at the very ear- 
liest periods of life ; for the longer a man lives, 
the more fixed and habitual does it become, and 
the harder to be removed. 

(4) Man brings with him into the world va- 
rious powers and faculties ; but, according to the 
plan of God, these can be developed and brought 
to a good end only by instruction and a wise 
education. Man does not come into the world 
with any inborn habits of action, or with any- 
thing which answers to the instincts of brutes, 
the place of which must be supplied by instruc- 
tion. But this instruction in religion, morality, 
and other useful things, which is so necessary 
to the proper development of our powers, is en- 
joyed by very few, and some are wholly desti- 
tute of it. And the instruction given on these 
subjects is often defective, and calculated to 
mislead. It allows men to be satisfied with a 
merely formal worship, in which the heart re- 
mains cold and unimproved ; it is generally 
above the capacities of the young, and by taxing 
the memory more than affecting the heart, it 
often produces aversion and disgust. The 
whole moral education, especially in the so 
called higher circles of life, is often extremely 
deficient; so that frequently the rude children 
of nature, left to grow up by themselves, are in 
a better condition than those who have been 
reared in the midst of refinement and cultiva- 
tion. At least, they are not so perverted and 
corrupted, although they may be wanting in 
some of the artificial accomplishments which 
the latter possess. 

Evil example, too, has an indescribable effect 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



265 



upon children and youth, and brings them to an 
earlier acquaintance with vice than with virtue. 
h should be remarked that the outbreakings of 
ma^y perverse inclinations and dispositions 
\vhi«h are perceived in children are the signs 
and tie consequences of some endowments of 
human nature in themselves good. The exhi- 
bitions of these dispositions are important hints 
to the teacher and guardian of the young ; and 
if he is wise and skilful, may receive such a 
direction fiom him as will turn them to good 
account in the ultimate character of those en- 
trusted to -his charge. For example, selfwill 
and obstinacy indicate firmness of character; 
forwardness and inquisitiveness indicate a cu- 
rious and active mind. 

(5) The social life of man, the gradual in- 
crease of cultivation, refinement, and luxury, 
and the propensity to seek for the pleasures of 
sense, while they are in some respects advan- 
tageous, are the cause of great evil and injury. 
Cf. Rousseau, Sur Vinegalite dss hommes. The 
wants of men are greatly multiplied, their sen- 
sual appetites are greatly excited by the con- 
stant presentation of new objects, and their true 
peace and contentment (avtapxla) are prevent- 
ed. They thus become continually more pas- 
sionate and insatiable, and more withdrawn 
from invisible and spiritual objects. 

Civilized man has, indeed, more means in his 
power to resist the evils arising from the social 
state; but these means are too little regarded 
and employed. Luxury makes men selfish, 
proud, and hard-hearted, and paves the way to 
other vices ; and when self, which is so pam- 
pered by luxury, once gets firm possession of 
the heart, morality and virtue are for ever ban- 
ished. The observation of the evils which 
arise from the connexion of men in social life, 
and from the progress of cultivation, suggested 
to many even of the ancient heathen world the 
thought that men were formerly in a better con- 
dition than at a later period. Vide s. 56. But 
Philosophy, uninstructed by Revelation, can 
never prove, (l priori, that a change has taken 
place in human nature,. and that it is now differ- 
ent from what it was. At least, the philoso- 
pher can never attain to perfect certainty on this 
subject, and will find many things enigmatical 
and inexplicable. 

Cf. on this subject the works from the differ- 
ent schools. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen iiber 
die Wahrheiten der Religion, b. ii. th. ii. s. 731, 
f. ; Junge, Philosophische und Theologische 
Aufsatze, th. ii. s. 297, 367; Steinbart, System 
der Gliickseligkeitslehre, cap. iii. s. 46, f. ; 
Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates ; Tollner, 
Theologische Untersuchungen, b. i. st. 2, s. 
112, f. As, however, in some of these works, 
especially in Steinbart, the depravity of man is 
very inadeqately represented, and the present 
34 



state of man is placed in far too advantageous 
and favourable a light, in contradiction both to 
the Bible and to experience, we refer with plea- 
sure to the views of Michaelis on this subject, 
expressed in his book, "Yon der Siinde," s. 
48—54, and in his " Moral," th. i. s. 1 05—130 ; 
also to Kant, "Ueberdas radicale Uebel," first 
essay in his "Religion innerhalb der Granzen 
der blossen Vernunft;" and to Morus, "Theol. 
Moral," and Reinhard's " Dogmatik" and » Mo- 
ral." 

[Cf. on this subject Bretschneider, Dogmatik, 
b. ii. s. 17, s. 120, Ursprung der Siinde; also 
Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde. Coleridge, 
Aids to Reflection, p. 154 — 178, especially 158 ; 
Neander, Allg. Kirchengeschichte, b. i., Abth. 
ii. s. 640; Hahn, s. 342, s. 77.— Tr.] 

III. Could God have prevented Sin P 

The question here arises, How can God be 
justified as the author of this constitution ? Could 
he not have guarded against moral evil in the 
world 1 Might he not have constituted human 
nature less weak, and less inclined to err and 
sin 1 ? It is not strange, considering how imper- 
fect is our knowledge of the eternal plan and of 
the universal government of God, that reflecting 
minds should have always been disturbed by 
doubts on this subject, and that they should have 
devised various means of relieving their doubts, 
and of vindicating God, and that, after all, they 
should have been unable, by mere philosophy, 
to attain to satisfaction. A great portion of the 
ancient philosophers endeavoured to relieve 
themselves of this difficulty by supposing two 
eternal principles. Vide No. I. 

In philosophizing on this subject we make 
the following general remarks: — 

(1) It is an established point that to God all 
evil, both physical and moral, as such, must be 
displeasing; and that he seeks to prevent it, 
wherever it may be done. But since there is 
much imperfection, evil, and sin, actually exist- 
ing in the world, we must conclude that God has 
effected and will 1 effect more good by the per- 
mission of sin than could be effected if he had 
not permitted it. He must have seen that he 
would have prevented the good, if he had not 
permitted the evil. Yide s. 48, ad finem ; and 
s., 71, I. To shew this was the object of Leib- 
nitz in his "Theodicee." 

(2) We must proceed on the same principles 
in judging of moral evil and corruption, espe- 
cially among men. Hateful to God as this moral 
evil must have been, and punishable as it is in 
itself, God yet must have seen that by means of 
this constitution of human nature a greater 
amount of good would be accomplished for the 
human race as a whole, and for the world, than 
if he had made man more perfect, had secured 
him against every opportunity to sin, or had 



26G 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



hindered his transgression hy the immediate ex- 
ercise of his powers The latter could not take 
place, as God had given to man a moral nature, 
which is placed under the law of freedom alone, 
and to which compulsion and necessity, which 
prevail in the material world, where everything 
proceeds by mechanical laws, cannot be applied. 
But as in every other case, so in this, God 
knows how to overrule evil in such a way that 
higher good shall result from it. Throughout 
the world there is a constant successive develop- 
ment, and a struggle after an advancement and 
improvement of condition ; and so it is with man. 
Vide Rom. viii. 20 — 23. Sin itself may serve 
for the promotion of good, and may contribute 
to the perfection of man. Through his liability 
to err, he may indeed pursue a retrograde course 
with regard to virtue and moral perfection ; but 
without this liability he could not make ad- 
vancement; and his virtue would cease to have 
any worth, and would no longer deserve the 
name if there were no possibility of wrong. 
Neither morality nor happiness can be con- 
ceived to exist without freedom. So much 
may be said on this subject in the way of phi- 
losophy ; it is, however, far from being satis- 
factory. 

SECTION LXXV. 

MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST 
PARENTS. 

The moral depravity of the human race is 
derived everywhere in the New Testament 
from the disobedience of our first parents. This 
universal corruption is denominated by theolo- 
gians, peccatum originatum, or originate, or ori- 
ginis ; the first transgression, peccatum origi- 
nans. More frequently, however, is this trans- 
gression denominated lapsus, fall, according to 
the Hebrew usage, where the verba cadendi 
signify to err, to sin, also to become unhappy ; 
as Prov. xxiv. 16, 17; Rev. ii. 5, ix7tL7itav. 
In the same way is labi used in Latin instead 
of peccare, errare ; and cadere, excidcre, to be 
miserable, to lose a thing. Moses in his narrative 
first gives an account of the divine precept, 
that Adam and Eve should not eat of the tree 
of knowledge, &c, Genesis, ii. 15 — 17; (vide 
s. 52, II. 2 ;) and then follows the account of 
the transgression itself, Gen. iii. 1, seq. We 
must therefore refer back to what has been 
already remarked, in general, respecting the 
creation of the world and of man; s. 49, I.; 
and s. 52, II. We now proceed to explain this 
account. 

I. Different ways in which this passage has been 
explained. 
The interpreters of this passage were formerly 
divided into two general olasses. Some have 



regarded it as an allegory, and interpreted it 
metaphorically, admitting no real serpent, tree, 
&c. Others consider it as a literal narrative d 
events which actually occurred in the manne. 
here recorded. To these two classes a tfiird 
has been added in modern times, who hol<? thai 
it is merely a didactic fable. With respect to 
the history of these various interpretations, cf. 
Pfaff and Buddeus, in their systems of theo- 
logy; also Ode, De Angelis, p. 498 i M. J. 0. 
Thiess, Variarum de cap. iii. Gereseos recte 
explicando specimen I.; Lubecse, 1788, 8vo. 
[Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 345, f. s. 78. Bret- 
schneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 58, s. 125 — Tr.] 

(1) The Allegorical interpretations. These 
are very various, and prove by their variety that 
no certain results can be attained by allegorical 
interpretation. All the explanations of this 
kind are forced and artificial. To suppose an 
allogory in this passage, which is preceded and 
followed by plain and simple history, is alto- 
gether unnatural, and foreign to the spirit of 
these ancient monuments. Nor is any hint or 
key to such an interpretation given us by the 
writer. This mode of interpreting this passage 
was resorted to merely for the sake of avoiding 
certain difficulties, some of which seem to 
arise from the great simplicity of this narrative, 
(for to the learned interpreter this simplicity 
constitutes an objection,) and others, from the 
great dissimilarity in the manner of thought 
and expression of this narrative from that which 
is found in this cultivated and refined age. 
The interpreters of this passage thought it 
necessary, therefore, to make the writer say 
something of higher import, and more philoso- 
phical, than is contained in the simple words; 
and proceeded with regard to Moses very much 
as the later Grecian interpreters did with regard 
to Homer. 

The first attempts at allegorical interpretation 
are found among the Grecian Jews, and princi- 
pally in Philo, De Opificio Mundi, p. 104, seq. 
ed. Pfeif. He was followed by Origen in this 
general principle of interpretation, though the 
latter gave a different turn to the narrative ; and 
Origen was again followed by Ambrose, in his 
book, "De Paradiso," I. Some of their fol- 
lowers understand all the circumstances here 
mentioned allegorically ; others, only some of 
them — e. g., the serpent, and allow the rest to 
stand as history. It is said by some, that the 
whole is intended to teach, by allegory, how 
unhappy man becomes by the indulgence of 
violent passions, and the evil consequences 
resulting from the prevalence of sense over rea- 
son. To this view of the subject Morus is in- 
clined, p. 99, n. 2. He supposes that by the 
serpent are intended, in general, the external 
inducements to evil by which we are surprised 
and overborne; but that the very things which 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



267 



constituted the original temptation are unknown 
to us. 

(2) Literal interpretations. A large proportion 
of the church fathers, (e. g., Justin the Martyr, 
Irenseus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, 
Augustine, and Theodoret,) and also most of 
the older theologians even in the protestant 
church, were united in the opinion that this 
passage should not be explained as an allegory, 
although they differed among themselves in the 
interpretation of particular expressions. They 
agreed, however, for the most part, in consider- 
ing the serpent as something else than a mere 
natural serpent, as it was regarded by Josephus 
and other Jewish interpreters. Some affirmed 
that the serpent was simply the devil— -an opi- 
nion justly controverted by Vitringa, on account 
of the great difficulties by which it is encom- 
passed. Others, and the greater part of the 
older Jewish and Christian interpreters, sup- 
posed that the serpent here spoken of was the 
instrument which was employed by the evil 
spirit to seduce mankind. So it is explained 
by Augustine, who was followed in this by 
Luther and Calvin ; and this, from their time, 
was the prevailing opinion of protestant theolo- 
gians, until the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
tury. There is, indeed, nothing said in the ori- 
ginal text respecting an evil spirit ; but as the 
serpent is here introduced as acting and speak- 
ing after the manner of an intelligent, though 
evil-disposed being, it was thought fair to con- 
clude that an evil being actually spoke through 
the serpent; and so has it been understood even 
among modern critics — e. g., by Michaelis and 
Zacharia. 

This exposition respecting the serpent is in- 
deed ancient; but still we can find no distinct 
traces of it in the books of the Old Testament 
written before the Babylonian exile; and we 
are therefore alike unable to prove or disprove 
that before that period this passage was so 
understood. To suppose that the serpent in 
this passage was the instrument of an invisible 
being is certainly entirely in the spirit of the 
most ancient people, who imagined that evil and 
good spirits were everywhere active in all the 
evil and good done in the world. After the 
Babylonian exile, however, we find it expressly 
said by the Jewish teachers, that in the tempta- 
tion an evil being was invisibly active through 
the serpent. This point may therefore be one 
of those (of which we find many relating to the 
doctrine of spirits) which belong to the later 
disclosures of the prophets. Vide s. 58. In 
the Apocryphal books before Christ we find it 
said that the devil deceived mankind, and 
brought sin and death into the world — e. g., 
Book of Wisdom, i. 13, 14; and especially ii. 
23, 24, (<j>^ov9 Sux/joTw-u, x. t. 7u) This is con- 
ceded on all hands. 



It is asserted, however, by many learned men, 
that this idea does not occur in the New Testa- 
ment, and they appeal to 2 Cor. xi. 3, where it 
is said that the serpent deceived Eve, and no 
mention is made of the devil ; and also to Rom. 
v. 18, where Paul makes no allusion to the 
devil, although he is treating of the origin of 
evil. In answer to this it may be said, (a) that 
considering how prevalent this explanation was 
at the time of Christ, and that neither he nor his 
apostles contradicted it, nor said anything in- 
consistent with it, the probability is, that they 
also assented to it. Morus seems to admit this, 
although in so doing he cannot be altogether 
consistent with himself. But (6) it deserves 
also to be considered that there are many allu- 
sions and references in the New Testament, in 
which this interpretation is presupposed, and 
from which it appears that Christ and his apos- 
tles assented to it, and authorized it — e. g., 
John, viii. 44, av§pco7tox*6vos b.it v-pxys » I John, 
iii. 8, art' apzw ° 6taj3o?io$ a/xaptavsi ; also the 
titles in Revelation, gpa^cov ^usyaj, o o§i$ 6 
dp^atoj, Rev. xii. 9, seq. From these texts we 
can see how the text 2 Cor. xi. 3 is to be under- 
stood. The New-Testament writers therefore 
assumed it as a fact, that in some way, not fur- 
ther determined, the devil was concerned in the 
temptation of man. It is not, however, expressly 
said in any one passage that the devil spoke 
through the serpent. 

The principal advocates of the interpretation 
formerly adopted by theologians, and in opposi- 
tion to the allegorists and to the class of inter- 
preters to be hereafter mentioned, were, among 
the more ancient, Aug. PfeifFer, Dubia vexata, 
cap. 6; among the more modern, Joh. Balth. 
Liiderwald, Die allegorische Erklarung der drey 
ersten Capitel Mosis, u. s. w. in ihrem Ungrund 
vorgestellt; Helmstadt, 1781, 8vo ; also Karl 
Traugott Eifert, Untersuchung der Frage, 
Konnte nicht die Mosaische Erzahlung vom 
Fall buchstablich wahr, und durch den Fall em 
erbliches Verderben auf die Menschen gekom- 
men seyn? Halle, 1781; especially Storr, De 
Protevangelio; Tubingse, 1789, (in his Opus- 
cula, torn. ii. num. 7,) and Koppen, Die Bibel 
u. s. w. th. ii. [To this class the great body of 
American theologians belongs.] 

(3) To the third class belong those interpret- 
ers who consider this narration as a mythus, or 
a truth invested in a poetic form. According to 
this idea, this passage has been interpreted in 
modern times by Eichhorn, in his " Urgeseh- 
ichte;" in such a way, however, that he al- 
lows some things in the account to be histori- 
cal and others allegorical. Such, in some re- 
spects, is also the interpretation of Rosenmiiller, 
(Repertor. th. i. s. 160,) who supposes that the 
narrative in Genesis was taken from a hi ero- 
de picture — i. e., transferred from pictorial' 



268 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



representation to alphabetic signs. These inter- 
preters have endeavoured to unite the historical 
and the mythical or allegorical interpretations. 
But this is inadmissible. If the mythical inter- 
pretation is adopted, the whole narrative, in all its 
parts, must be considered as a my thus, like what 
other nations had, in order to represent to them- 
selves, each in its own way, in a distinct and 
vivid manner, the first sin of man, and its con- 
sequences. So Eichhorn, Paulus, Gabler, and 
many others. One of two things must be ad- 
mitted ; either this narrative throughout must 
be considered as a veritable history of events 
which took place just as here related, (and this 
agrees with the New Testament,) or it is wholly 
a didactic or moral fiction. In both cases the 
interpreter must proceed in the interpretation of 
the particular portions of this account from the 
same principles. It is undoubtedly the fact, 
that Moses, or the writer from whom he took 
this account, (vide s. 49,) understood these ex- 
pressions just as they stand, according to their 
literal meaning ; and that these other ideas which 
are attached to this narrative were ascribed to it 
at a later period, in order to adapt it more to the 
tastes and feelings of cultivated and speculative 
minds. 

In confirmation of the internal truth and con- 
sistency of this narrative let the following things 
be considered; and they are equally deserving 
of notice, whether this passage be literally or 
historically understood. Conversation with ani- 
mals is something, which to man, in his natural 
condition, and before the refinements of social 
life, is perfectly common, and by no means 
strange and incredible. How often is it the 
case with children, (even with those, too, who 
are somewhat grown up,) that they address 
inanimate things, and still more frequently 
living creatures, imagining what they would 
answer, and then replying to them in turn ! 
They will often, too, relate to others the conver- 
sations they have had with the animals around 
them. Hence the fables of iEsop were more 
agreeable and impressive, and less strange and 
startling, even to mature minds, in the ancient 
world than now. Hence, too, the supposition 
which once prevailed even in the heathen world, 
that in the golden age beasts actually spake. 
Again ,- the author understood the speaking of 
God, here mentioned, as real, articulate speech, 
perhaps with a voice of thunder. For the idea 
was very prevalent in the ancient world that the 
Deity was, as it were, personally present, and 
appeared to the men of early times in the most 
nee and familiar intercourse; somewhat as the 
gods were supposed by the Greeks to have as- 
sociated with men in the heroic ages. Vide 
6. 54, I. 

This whole representation, however, whether 
it be fact or moral fiction, is entirely conformed 



to the nature of the human soul, and describes 
in a manner perfectly true, the history of the 
temptation and sin of man, as it is witnessed 
everyday, through the impression which sensi- 
ble objects make upon him. Here then, by the 
example of our first parents, two things are 
shewn : the way in which sin commonly arises, 
and the way in which it actually first entered 
the world. In this, however, there is a differ- 
ence, that in the case of our first parents they 
had come to maturity without having yet sinned. 
The first sin committed upon earth was one of 
momentous consequences for themselves and 
their posterity. In looking at this transaction, 
we are again impressed with the idea that the 
state of innocence in which our first parents were 
placed was a state of immaturity, of childhood, 
and infantine simplicity; and that they then 
had no very extended knowledge or experience. 
They were deceived in nearly the same way as 
an innocent and inexperienced child is now de- 
ceived. In this point of view this narrative has 
been very justly apprehended, even by Moms, 
p. 99, n. 1. 

[Note. — There is an interesting essay on the 
Mosaic account of the Fall in the Appendix to 
Tholuck's " Lehre von der Sunde." While he 
contends for the historic fact of the fall, he at the 
same time regards the representation here given 
of this fact as figurative, and finds insuperable 
objections in the way of the literal, and very 
plausible arguments in favour of the moral inter- 
pretation. He gives the following as the moral 
import of the passage : " Man, who, in accord- 
ance with his destination, enjoyed a holy inno- 
cence, in which he knew no other will than that 
of God, abandoned this state, became selfish 
(autonomic), and would no longer acknowledge 
the divine law of life as the highest;" s. 266, 
of the work above mentioned. The views of the 
German theologians on this subject are very vari- 
ous ; and though often fanciful, sometimes deep- 
ly interesting and profound. It will be suffi- 
cient to refer to some of the more important of 
these, which the ardent student of theology, 
who wishes to overstep the limit of merely tra- 
ditionary ideas, may consult at his leisure. Cf. 
Schleiermacher, Christ. Glaub. b. ii. s. 59. 
Schlegel, Philosophic der Geschichte, b. i. s. 
42, 43. Herder, Geist der Ebra. Poesie, b. i. 
s. 155. To these we may add the speculations, 
ingenious and exciting, even when unfounded 
and fanciful, of Coleridge. See his « Aids to 
Reflection," notes, p. 324, 325; also p. 176, 
177— Tr.] 

II. Particular Expressions and Representations. 
(1) Respecting the divine law, the transgres- 
sion of it, and the temptation, Genesis, ii. 17, 
coll. ver. 9, and chap, iii.l — 6. For an account 
of the name, tree of the knowledge of good and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



26» 



evil, vide s. 52, II. The question is here asked, 
What design had God in view in giving this 
precept? According to the opinion of many- 
theologians, this command was given by God 
merely for the sake of putting the virtue of 
Adam and Eve to the test, there being no inju- 
rious quality in the tree itself which should lead 
him to forbid it ; and so they suppose that the 
punishment of death threatened and inflicted by 
God had no natural connexion with the eating 
of the forbidden fruit, but depended merely upon 
the divine will. This is supposed by Ernesti, 
Vindiciae arbitrii divini, in his " Opusc. Theol." 
p. 231 ; and among the ancients, by Theophilus, 
Ad Autolyc. 1. ii. c. 35. But against this sup- 
position there are many reasons, both of an in- 
ternal and external nature, which have been 
well exhibited by Michaelis, Von der Sunde, s. 
559. The fact that this forbidden tree is set 
over against the tree of life, would lead us to 
think that it was in itself a poisonous tree, and 
in its own nature destructive to man. And to 
this opinion even Morus assents, p. 102, s. 16. 
The writer here designs to shew by what natu- 
ral means the life of man was to have been pro- 
longed, according to the divine appointment, 
in the state of innocence; and this means is 
the tree of life, or life-giving tree; and after- 
wards, by what means death came into the 
world — namely, by a poisonous tree. It is 
against the latter, which bore an alluring, beau- 
tiful fruit, that God warns inexperienced man, 
as a father cautions his child not to taste of a 
pleasant poison which may lie in his way. 
Since man entered his new abode as a stranger, 
it was naturnal that he should receive all neces- 
sary instructions and cautions from the being 
who prepared it for him, and introduced him to 
it. Tasting of the fruit of this tree introduced 
disorder into the human body, which, from that 
time forward, was subject to disease and death. 
In this way is God justified, as every one can 
see, from the charge of being the author of human 
misery ; just as a father is acquitted from blame 
in the misfortune of his children if he had before 
cautioned them against the poison. In this way, 
too, every one can understand why God should 
require obedience from man. The father requires 
obedience of his children, because he knows 
better than they do what is best for them. For 
the same reason should we unconditionally obey 
God. Nor is the explanation now given, by 
which the forbidden fruit is considered in its 
own nature poisonous, a new explanation; it 
is mentioned by Chrysostom, although he re- 
jects it. 

The propriety and consistency of the account 
of the temptation by means of the serpent may 
be illustrated by the following remarks. The 
serpent was used by almost all the ancient na- 
tions as the symbol of prudence, adroitness, and 



cunning. Vide Matt. x. 16 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3. Eve 
sees a serpent upon this forbidden tree, and pro- 
bably eating of its fruits, which to a serpent 
might not be harmful. And it is very natural 
that this should be first observed by the woman, 
that her interest and curiosity 7 should have been 
arrested by the sight, and that, with- her greatet 
susceptibility to temptation, her desires should 
have been first kindled, and she first seduced 
from obedience. Paul mentions it as worthy 
of notice, that the woman first sinned, 1 Tim. 
ii. 14, coll. Sir. XXV. 32, drfo yvvo.ixb$ apxV awotp- 
Ttaj. We may compare with this part of the 
narrative the Grecian mythus of Pandora. As 
to what follows, we very naturally understand 
that Eve reflected upon what she had seen, and 
expressed her thoughts in words ■ — " The ser- 
pent is a very lively and knowing animal, and 
yet it eats of the fruit which is forbidden us. 
This fruit cannot, therefore, be so hurtful, and 
the prohibition may not have been meant in 
earnest," &c. — the same fallacies with which 
men still deceive themselves when the objects 
of sense entice and draw them away. The fact 
which she observed, that the serpent ate the 
fruit of the forbidden tree without harm, excited 
the thought which in ver. 4, 5 are represented 
as the words of the serpent, that it was worth 
while to eat of this fruit. It did not seem to 
occasion death ; and, on the other hand, appeared 
rather to impart health, vigour, and intelligence, 
as was proved from the example of the serpent, 
which remained after eating it well and wise. 
" Consider me," the serpent might have seemed 
to her to say, "how brisk, sound, and cunning 
I am," &c. Now, as she knows of no being 
who surpasses man in wisdom, excepting God 
only, she supposes, in her simplicity, that if she 
became wiser than she then was, she should 
be like God. Meanwhile, the desire after that 
which was forbidden became continually more 
irresistible. She took of the fruit and ate. The 
man, who, as is common, was weak and pliable 
enough to yield to the solicitation of his wife, 
received the fruit from her and ate with her. 

All this may have been as now stated, even 
on the supposition, so conformed to the spirit 
of the ancient world, and fully authorized in 
the New Testament, that the evil spirit had an 
agency in this transaction. This supposition 
can occasion no alteration in the verbal explana- 
tion of this record. Satan can be allowed to he 
no otherwise concerned in this affair than as in 
stigator and contriver ; somewhat after the man- 
ner of a malicious and crafty man, who might 
secretly injure another, by tempting him, either 
by words or in any other way, to taste of a poi- 
sonous article. Those to whom the real speak- 
ing of the serpent seems strange and incredible, 
may und-erstand it as above. 

Now it was in this transgression of the divine 
z2 



270 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



law, which made strict abstinence from the for- 
bidden tree binding 1 upon them, that their sin is 
placed ; and it is this which the apostle calls 
rtapaxorj, Rom. v. 19. The rising desires which 
our first parents felt to eat the fruit were founded 
in their nature, and were not imputed to them 
as sin. Nor is the springing up of involuntary 
desire in the heart of man ever considered in 
scripture as sin; but merely the entertaining, 
cherishing, and accomplishing of this desire. 
Vide James, i. 14. The sin of our first parents, 
then, properly consisted in this — that they were 
not implicitly obedient to God, as Paul remarks 
in the passage just cited. This disobedience 
to God is the greatest wrong, and draws after 
itself inevitably the mostinjurious consequences, 
whether it is shewn in greater or smaller in- 
stances. Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 23. They did what 
God had forbidden, under the impression which 
men are accustomed to have in such cases, that 
it was something trifling, and of little import. 
From this first act, there now arose in their 
minds alienation from God, distrust of him, the 
desire of independence of him, &c. They began 
to say, " that God had not allowed them to be 
like himself," &c. — thoughts from which they 
should have shrunk with abhorrence, and ban- 
ished instantly from their hearts. 

(2) The consequences of this transgression are 
narrated, ver. 7, seq. The author does not give 
such a representation as would lead us to think 
that all piety, virtue, and religion, ceased with 
man immediately upon his first transgression. 
For we see in the sequel, that the knowledge 
and worship of God were perpetuated in the 
family of Adam. We perceive too, that our 
first parents felt repentance and shame after the 
fall, and these feelings are sufficient proof that 
morality and rectitude were not wholly oblite- 
rated by the fall. Some theologians maintain 
that by the fall man lost the image of God, but 
this is denied by others. And both may be true, 
according as the image of God is understood in 
a wider or more narrow sense. The whole dis- 
pute is more respecting words than things. 
Vide s. 53, ad finem, and s. 54. The author 
places the consequences of this transgression 
in the following particulars — viz., 

(a) In the disturbed balance of the powers and 
inclinations of man, and in the preponderance 
which the impulses of sense now obtained over 
reason. For this balance and harmony of powers 
was that which constituted, according to the ac- 
count of Moses, the principal advantage of the 
state of innocence. That this was the conse- 
quence of the first transgression is clearly taught 
by Moses in the expression, " and they knew that 
they were naked,'''' which may be euphemistically 
expressed as follows: "They felt the motions 
of sense uncommonly strong, which they were 
no longer able to control as heretofore, but by 



which they were now governed, whence the 
feeling of shame arose in their minds ;" as is 
still the case with innocent youth, when it first 
begins to have such desires. It is possible that 
this may be considered as also the effect of the 
harmful fruit which had been eaten by them, 
by which their nerves were strongly excited ; 
for there are many poisonous plants by which 
violent excitement is imparted to the nerves, 
and by which great disorder is produced both in 
soul and body — spasmodic affections, stupefac- 
tion, and delirium ; such are belladonna, opium, 
thorn-apple, and hemlock. This supposition 
will at least serve to render the subject more 
intelligible, and to explain how this effect may 
have been propagated from Adam to his poste- 
rity, although it is by no means necessary to 
understand this effect as a physical one; and at 
all events this should not be brought into popu- 
lar instruction, as it is merely conjectural.* 



* The views here expressed respecting the nature 
of the forbidden fruit, and the consequences of eat- 
ing it upon our first parents, are the basis of our au- 
thor's ideas respecting the natural character of man ; 
they ought therefore to be carefully examined here, 
where they are first introduced. It is easy to see 
how Dr. Knapp's love of plainness and simplicity of 
interpretation, and his aversion to the metaphysical 
and speculative spirit of his times, should have in- 
clined him to sentiments like those which he has 
here expressed respecting the narrative in Genesis. 
Indeed, they may be said to result fairly from adopt- 
ing and carrying through the principle of literal in- 
terpretation in application to this passage. To the 
same conclusion substantially were Michaelis and 
Reinhard brought before him, by reasoning on the 
same principles. But we ought to hesitate before 
adopting principles which strip this opening page of 
human history of its chief moral and religious inter- 
est, and substitute transactions so unimportant and 
even trivial. To teach that the forbidden tree was 
one of physical poison ; that on this account mainly, 
and not for the purpose of testing their obedience, 
our first parents were warned against it ; that by 
seeing a serpent feed on it with impunity, they 
falsely concluded they might do so ; that having thus 
by mistake been led to taste of it, their nerves were 
excited, their passions inflamed, and reason weaken- 
ed ; and, lastly, that the propagation of this physical 
disorder is the cause of the universal predominance 
of sense over reason, in short, of human depravity; 
these are propositions so strange that we must won- 
der how they could have been soberly propounded 
by writers of such eminence. 

To minds of a particular cast, which had been dis- 
gusted with the assumptions of philosophy, and 
wearied with travelling through its thorny mazes, so 
simple and easy a solution of the mysteries of our 
present condition might naturally furnish repose. 
But a just and unperverted critical taste must be of- 
fended with an interpretation so flatly and frigidly 
ad liter am as that which is here suggested. 

If this narrative is to retain the least doctrinal in- 
terest, it must be regarded as exhibiting the trial of 
man as to obedience to the divine will, and the un- 
happy issue of this trial. And if this meaning be 
extracted from this history, it is not of so much con- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAX IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



271 



(b) The consequences of the first transgres- 
sion are seen in still other evils. Physical evils 
are usually regarded as the consequences of an- 
tecedent moral faults, and experience shews 
this to be correct, though mistakes are easily 
made in applying this principle to particular 
cases. When man was more perfect, and lived 
in a state of innocence, he bore none of those 
loads which he is now called to sustain ; he 
was under no necessity of tilling the ground 
with weariness ; he lived free from care, needed 
no clothing, &c. Vide s. 56. All this now 
ceased; and the evils which began to appear 
were regarded as the consequences of the fall, 
and as punishments inflicted by the Deity. 
Hence it is related, ver. 8, that God sat in so- 
lemn judgment upon our first parents, and pro- 
nounced their sentence. And this was done in 
a thunder storm, which took place Dtvi nnb — i. e., 
at eventide, when the cool evening wind began 
to blow at sunset, as it does in the east. This 
term is used in opposition to dw on, meridies. 
Gen. xviii. 1. Man hid himself; the natural 
effect of the consciousness of having acted 
wrong; and then comes the trial. All this is 
perfectly natural, and like what we see every 
day in the ease of crime and of an evil con- 
science. Men, as here, fear the presence of 
God, and wish to conceal themselves from him, 
although they well know that this is impossi- 
ble. It is hard for them to acknowledge their 
sins, repent of them, and confess them. They 
seek vain excuses, and throw off the guilt from 
themselves to others ; Eve upon the serpent, 
and Adam upon Eve. And indeed, in these 
words — the woman which thou gavest rae, 
Adam seems to throw the guilt upon God, as 



sequence whether it be by an allegorical or literal 
interpretation. But to make this the history of the 
imprudent conduct of Adam and Eve in eating of a 
fruit of whose fatal qualities they had been fore- 
warned, and thus poisoning themselves, is to empty 
it of its high interest as the account of the birth of 
sin, and to reduce it to a common-place story, un- 
worthy of its place at the head of the history of man. 
It was well said by Theophilus of Antioch, long ago, 
" that it was not the tree, but the disobedience, which 
had death in itself," Contra Autyl. Luther, too, 
who in general followed the literal interpretation, 
says, with regard to this passage, " Adam indeed 
stuck his teeth into the apple; but he set them. too. 
upon a thorn, which was, the law of God and dis- 
obedience against him; and this was the proper 
cause of his misery." Com. on Gen. ii. 5. 

Some of the remoter consequences of Knapp's 
view of the transgression of our first parents and its 
influence on their posterity are not less singular than 
the first appearance of his interpretation. If the re- 
sult of the fall to Adam was a physical disorder which 
we inherit from him, then it would seem that, in 
order that man might be restored, a physical cure 
ought first to be effected, and the first step towards 
his recovery should be a medical prescription. But 
of this more hereafter. — Tb.] 



much as to say, "hadst not thou given ner to 
me, this evil had not been done." 

But the most distinct punishment for the 
transgression of the divine law was this — that 
they must die; Gen. ii. IT, coll. iii. 19. In the 
former of these texts the phrase is niDfl ryfc (best 
rendered by Symmachus, §vTfib$ Itc) ; in the 
latter, thou shall return to the earth from whence 
thou wast taken. In the latter passage, there- 
fore, it can be only mortality which is spoker. 
of; and the theological distinction of spiritual, 
bodily, and eternal death has no connexion with 
this passage. Some theologians assert even 
that it dees not relate to bodily death at all, but 
only to spiritual and eternal. So Calovius, 
Seb. Schmidt, Fecht, &c. This mortality now 
was the consequence of the harmful fruit they 
had eaten, just as their immortality was de- 
scribed as what would be the consequence of 
eating of the tree of life. And as men were 
henceforward to be deprived of immortality, 
they were no more permitted to eat of the tree 
of life, and were therefore removed by God from 
the garden, ver. 2-2, 24. In the same way that 
their removal from the garden is represented as 
an act of God, are we to understand the direc- 
tion that they should be clothed with the skins of 
beasts, (" God made them coats of skins," as it 
is said, ver. 21) — viz., as an instruction which 
they received directly and immediately from 
God; for it was a common opinion throughout 
the ancient world, that God had directly com- 
municated to men the knowledge of many use- 
ful inventions. 

In the w-ords, ver. 22, ' ; Adam has become 
like one of us, knowing good and evil," there 
is something ironical, and they refer to ver. 5, 
as much as to say, " we see now how it is, man 
wished to become wise and like to God, but in 
breaking the commandment of God he acted 
like a fool." Others render these words, "Ae 
was like one of us, but now is so no more." 

With respect to the curse pronounced upon 
the serpent, ver. 14, many difficulties are found. 
How can the serpent, which, even supposing it 
the instrument of the devil, was an innocent 
cause of the temptation, have been punished'? 
This certainly does not seem to agree with our 
present ideas of punishment, and what consti- 
tutes capacity for it. But if we notice the con- 
duct of children, and of rude and uncultivated 
men, we shall find a solution. God deals with 
men more humano, and condescends in his con- 
duct to their limited and infantine comprehen- 
sions. AVhen children are injured by an animal, 
or even by an inanimate thing, they often pro- 
ceed in the same way as they would with one 
like themselves. The sense of the injury which 
they have experienced, and the displeasure 
which they naturally feel, leads them to wish 
for recompence; and they feel a kind of satis- 



272 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



faction when the cause of the injury done them, 
even if it be a lifeless object, is in their view 
repaid. To these conceptions does God here 
condescend, and designs to impress upon the 
minds of our first parents, by this vivid repre- 
sentation, the idea that the tempter in this 
transaction would not go unrewarded, and that 
every tempter must expect to receive from him 
unavoidable and severe punishment. This is 
the doctrine which is taught them in this, so to 
speak, sensible manner. The punishment in- 
flicted upon the invisible agent concerned in 
this temptation could not be made obvious to 
them ; it must therefore be made to fall upon the 
instrument. Enough for them that they could 
derive from the punishment of the serpent this 
doctrine, which, in the state in which they then 
were, could have been in no other way made so 
obvious and impressive. Hence the fear and 
dread of the serpent which is felt by man and 
beast. It is the image of baseness, and cleaves 
to the ground. To eat dust, is a figurative ex- 
pression, denoting to be levelled with the ground, 
laid in the dust, Is. xlix. 23. So, to eat ashes, 
Ps. cii. 10, and the phrase humum ore memordit, 
used by Virgil with respect to one struck dead 
to the earth. Cf. Horn. Odyss. xxii. 269. 

(3) Ver. 15, 1 will put enmity between thee and 
the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it 
shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his 
heel, jn? in the first case denotes the posterity 
of the serpent — the serpent race ; in the second 
case, either collectively, the posterity of Eve, 
yswr^ol yvvcuxuv, Matt. xi. 11 ; or one of this 
poster^, a descendant or son of Eve ; for in this 
latter sense may jn? in the singular be taken, 
according to the Hebrew idiom — e. g., Gen. iv. 
25. Taken in this sense it is referred to the 
Messiah, the second Adam, who even by the 
later Jews was denominated jnr, the descendant 
sometimes of Adam and sometimes of Abraham. 
Vide Gal. v. 16, and Wetstein ad. h. 1. These 
words admit of a threefold construction, neither 
of which is inconsistent with, or entirely ex- 
cludes the others, and either of which contains 
instruction for those to whom these words were 
first addressed, and to their posterity. 

(a) If these words are referred to the serpent 
here visible, the sense is, " It is my will that en- 
mity should exist between thee and the woman, 
between thy bre-ed and her descendants — i. e., 
there shall be a constant hatred between the 
human and the serpent race. Men shall aim at 
thy head, and thou at their heel — i. e., they 
shall seek thy life, and thou shalt seek to injure 
them by thy poisonous bite whenever thou 
canst." Cf. Zacharia, Bibl. Theol., th. ii. s. 
318, and Repert. iv. 250, f. 

(b) Everything which took place here was 
designed to give moral instruction to our first 
parents. In this way it was intended to teach 



them respecting the external occasions and ex 
citements to sin; and by means of the serpent, 
this lesson was made plain and obvious to their 
senses. Hence we have in these words the fol- 
lowing maxim : " Thou and thy posterity (i. e., 
all men) will have from henceforward a constant 
warfare against sin to maintain. The victory 
o*f man over the tempter and his seductions will 
be difficult and uncertain; they will be in con- 
stant contention with each other, and men will 
not come off uninjured, nor will they remain 
hereafter unseduced, and must always feel the 
injurious consequences of transgression." 

(c) If'jnj in the second case denotes a single 
individual among the descendants of Adam, it 
refers to the Messiah, who has destroyed the 
power of the tempter and of sin, and who has 
also made it possible for all his followers to 
overcome them. Vide 1 John, iii. 8. Our first 
parents could not indeed have understood these 
words as a distinct prophecy respecting the Mes- 
siah, for they were not able at that time to com- 
prehend the idea of a Messiah in all its extent; 
nor is this text ever cited in the New Testament 
as a prophecy respecting Christ. From these 
words, however, they could easily deduce the 
idea, that in this contest the human race might 
and would come off finally victorious. The 
head of the serpent would be bruised for its en- 
tire destruction, and the only revenge it could 
take would be, to bite the heel; it could injure 
less than it would itself be injured. Hence it 
was here, as Paul says respecting the patriarchs, 
Heb. xi. 13, they received the promise from 
God, but saw that which was promised rtop^w^sv. 
Respecting the manner in which this promise 
should be fulfilled, and the person through whom 
it should be performed, more full revelations 
were gradually given at a later period. So that 
even although our first parents might not have 
been able to refer this jn? to one particular de- 
scendant of Adam, they might yet find in these 
words a consoling promise of God. And for 
this reason we may justly call this passage, as 
it has been called by some of the church fathers, 
protevangelium, because it contains the first joy- 
ful promise ever given to our race. Vide Storr, 
De Protevangelio ; Tubingse, 1781. [Hengsten- 
berg, Christologie. Smith, Scripture Testimony 
to the Messiah, vol. i. — Tr.] 

Note, — In explaining the history of the fall to 
the people, the teacher should dwell mostly 
upon the internal truth and the practical instruc- 
tion contained in it. In conformity with the 
remark at the latteT part of No. I. of this section, 
he must shew, from the example of the proge- 
nitors of our race, not only how sin first entered 
into the world, but also how it is still accus 
tomed to arise. In doing this he can appeal to 
James, i. 13 — 15, and then illustrate the truth 
by examples, such as daily occur. In this way 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



273 



he may rescue this history from the contempt 
sometimes thrown upon it, and teach those en- 
trusted to his care to regard it not as a fable, 
but seriously to reflect upon it in such a manner 
as may be profitable to them. He must treat it 
entirely as fact or history, in the same manner 
as it is treated both in the Old and New Testa- 
ment, Let him by no means initiate his hear- 
ers into all the hypotheses and controversies of 
the learned on this subject, since they are un- 
able to form a judgment respecting them, and 
will be rather confounded than enlightened by 
hearing them recited. And since in the New 
Testament the devil is represented as having an 
agency in this transaction, he must also be so 
represented by the Christian teacher, who, how- 
ever, must not attempt to determine the manner 
in which this agency was exerted, as on this 
point the scripture says nothing. 

[On the general subject of this section cf. the 
authors before referred to, Tholuck, Lehre von 
der Siinde, Appendix, s. 264; Schleirmacher, 
Glaubenslehre, b. ii. s. 59 ; Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 
345, s. 78; Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. ii. s. 
58, s. 125 ; Herder, Geist der Ebrai. Poesie, b. 
i. s. 136, fT— Tr.] 

SECTION LXXVI. 

OF THE IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST 
PARENTS. 

It is taught in theology, that the transgres- 
sion of the progenitors of mankind had a two- 
fold influence upon their posterity — viz., a phy- 
sical influence in the propagation of sinful desires 
and moral imperfection, and also a moral influ- 
ence, vhich is commonly considered as properly 
imputationem peccati JLdamilici. These two do 
not necessarily belong together, although impu- 
tatio and peccatum originate have been often 
connected together by theologians. They may, 
however, be distinguished ; and one may easily 
affirm moral corruption while he denies imputa- 
tion, and the reverse. We shall therefore first 
treat of imputation, and then show how, accord- 
ing to the scriptures, the two are united. 

Now, whatever diversity there may exist in 
the opinions of theologians respecting imputa- 
tion when they come to express their own views 
definitely, they will yet, for the most part, agree 
that the phrase, God imputes the si?i of our pro- 
genitors to their posterity, means, that/or the sin 
committed by our progenitors God punishes their 
descendants. The term to impute is used in dif- 
ferent senses, (a) It is said of a creditor, who 
charges something to his debtor as debt; like 
Stem, and Xoyt^eytou. and fr.hoyico — e. g., Philem. 
ver. 18. (b) It is transferred to human judg- 
ment, when any one is punished, or declared 
deserving of punishment. Crime is regarded 
as a debt, which must be cancelled partly by 
35 



actual restitution and partly by punishment, 
(c) This now is applied to God, who imputes 
sin when he pronounces men guilty, and treats 
them accordingly — i. e., when he actually pu- 
nishes the sin of men, (ftp rssfo, ?..oyi^a^ai a/xap- 
tiav, Ps. xxxii. 2.) The one punished is called 
\r; NfrJ, in opposition to one to whom npnxS aeti, 
who is rewarded, Ps. cvi. 31 ; Rom. iv. 3. 

In order to learn whatsis taught in the theo 
logical schools on this subject, we must pursue 
the historic method, or we shall grope in the 
dark. 

1. Opinions of the Jews, 

The imputation of Adam's sin is not called 
in the Mosaic narrative, or anywhere in the Old 
Testament, by the name of imputation, although 
the doctrine of imputation is contained in it, as 
we shall soon see. But in the writings of the 
Talmudists, and of the Rabbins, and still earlier 
in the Chaldaic paraphrases on the Old Testa- 
ment, we find it asserted, in so many words, 
that the posterity of Adam were punished with 
bodily death on account of his first sin, although 
they themselves had never sinned. Cf. the 
Chaldaic paraphrase on Ruth, iv. 22, "Because 
Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, all the inhabitants 
of the earth are subject to death." In this way 
they accounted to themselves for the death of 
the greatest saints, who, as they supposed, had 
never themselves sinned. They taught, also, 
that in the person cf Adam the whole multitude 
or mass of his posterity had sinned. Vide the 
Commentators on Rom. v., especially Wetstein 
and Koppe. As early as the time of the apos- 
tles, this doctrine was widely prevalent among 
the Jews. It is clearly taught by Paul, in Rom. 
v. 12, 14, and is there placed by him in intimate 
connexion with the more peculiar Christian doc- 
trines. In this passage he has employed ex- 
actly the same expressions which we find among 
the Rabbins. 

How was this doctrine developed and brought 
to such clearness among the Jews? They pro- 
ceeded from the scriptural maxim, that man was 
created immortal, and that the death of Adam 
was a consequence of his transgression. And 
since all the posterity of Adam die, although all 
have not themselves sinned (e. g., children), 
they concluded that these too must endure this 
evil on account of Adam's transgression. Cf 
Book of Wisdom, ii. 23, 24. Sirach, xxv. 32, 
drto yvvaixb$ oqx'h o.ua^'tia^, xal 6t avtrv arto- 
^vraxofxsv rtdvt£$. Farther than this, which is 
evidently founded in the scriptures, they did not 
go. In order to illustrate this doctrine and ren- 
der it plain, they probably resorted to some 
analogies; such, for example, as the fact, that 
children must often suffer for the crimes of their 
parents, in which they had no share ; and that, 
according to the law of Moses, the iniquity of 



274 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



parents was visited upon the children of the 
third and fourth generation. In what wa) r they 
probably conceived of imputation, and formed 
their conclusions about it, may be seen from the 
remarkable passage, Heb. vii. 9, 10. The pa- 
triarch Levi (who, according to the Mosaic law, 
receives the tithes) paid tithes to Melchisedec in 
the person of Abraham — i. e., it is to be consi- 
dered the same as if the Levites paid tithes to 
Melchisedec when Abraham paid them, for Levi 
was in the loins of his father Abraham when he 
met Melchisedec — i. e., he already existed in 
Abraham, although he was not yet born. What 
Abraham did is to be considered as if it had 
been done by his descendant; for had he lived 
at that time he would have done the same that 
Abraham then did. 

II. Opinions of the New-Testament Writers. 

This doctrine is most clearly taught in Rom. 
v. 12 — 14, a passage which is very variously ex- 
plained. It is also briefly exhibited in 1 Cor. xv. 
21, 22. Vide Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, 
Theil i. st. 2, s. 56. Modern philosophers and 
theologians have found many things here incon- 
sistent with their philosophical systems. And 
some of them have laboured so hard and long 
upon this passage that they have at length ex- 
torted a sense from it, in which nothing of im- 
putation could any longer be discerned ; and this 
is the case with Doderlein in his "Dogmatik." 
They did not consider, however, that Paul here 
makes use of the same words and phrases which 
were then common among the Jews on the sub- 
ject of imputation, and that he could not there- 
fore have been otherwise understood by his con- 
temporary readers; and that Paul has also 
reasoned in the same way on another subject, 
Heb. vii. 9, 10. Cf. No. I. 

Paul shews, in substance, that all men are 
regarded and punished by God as sinners, and 
that the ground of this lies in the act of one 
man; as, on the contrary, deliverance from pu- 
nishment depends also upon one man, Jesus 
Christ. If the words of Paul are not perverted, 
it must be allowed, that in Rom. v. 12 — 14, he 
thus reasons : "The cause of the universal mor- 
tality of the human race lies in Adam's trans- 
gression. He sinned, and so became mortal. 
Other men are regarded and treated by God as 
punishable, because they are the posterity of 
Adam, the first transgressor, and consequently 
they too are mortal. Should it now be objected, 
that the men who lived from Adam to Moses 
might themselves have personally sinned, and 
so have been punished with death on their own 
account, it might be answered, that those who 
lived before the time of Moses had no express 
and positive law which threatened the punish- 
ment of sin, like those who lived after Moses. 
The positive law of Moses was not as yet given; 



they could not, consequently, be punished on 
account of their own transgressions, as no law 
was as yet given to them ; ver. 14. Still they 
must die, like Adam, who transgressed a posi- 
tive law. Hence their mortality must have an- 
other cause, and this is to be sought in the im- 
putation of Adam's transgression. And in the 
same way, the ground of the justification of man 
lies not in himself, but in Christ, the second 
Adam." 

Such is the argument of Paul in this passage. 
But respecting eternal death, or the torments of 
hell, he here says nothing, and is far from im- 
plying that on account of a sin committed by 
another man long before their birth, God pu- 
nishes men with eternal hell torments. On the 
contrary, he here speaks of bodily death merely, 
as the consequence of the sin of Adam. And 
herein the learned Jews agreed with him. And 
in the passage 1 Cor. xv. 21, seq., Paul shews 
that the resurrection to a blessed immortality 
will be the best and highest proof of our entire 
restoration through Jesus Christ, even as bodily 
death is the first and most striking proof of our 
degeneracy through Adam. [On this passage, 
cf. Tholuck, Comm. lib. Rom. v.; Usteri, Ent- 
wickel. d. paulin. LehrbegrifFs ; Edwards, Ori- 
ginal Sin, chap. iv. p. 352 ; Stuart's Comment- 
ary on Rom. v. and Excursus. — Tr.] 

IH. Hypotheses of Theologians. 

The greatest difficulties with respect to this 
doctrine have arisen from the fact that many 
have treated what is said by Paul in the fifth of 
Romans — a passage wholly popular, and any- 
thing hut formally exact and didactic — in a learn- 
ed and philosophical manner, and have defined 
terms used by him in a loose and popular way, 
b)^ logical and scholastic distinctions. We do 
not find anywhere among the ancients, in their 
popular discourses, an exact and philosophically 
precise use of terms with respect to the conse- 
quences and the punishment of sin. They fre- 
quently use the word punishment in a wider 
sense, in which it is here and elsewhere em- 
ployed by Paul. He and the Jewish teachers, 
with whom in this particular he agrees, use^u- 
nishment (xa-raxpiua,') imputation of sin, &c, in 
the same sense in which it is said respecting 
children, for example, that they are punished on 
account of the crimes of their ancestors, that the 
crimes of their ancestors are imputed to them, 
&c. ; although they, in their own persons, had 
no share in the guilt, and could not, therefore, 
in the strictest philosophical and juridical sense, 
be considered as the subjects of imputation and 
punishment. The family of a traitor, whose 
name is disgraced, and whose goods are confis- 
cated, are thus said to be punished on his ac- 
count. Respecting Louis XVI., who was so 
unfortunate, and suffered so much in consequence 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



275 



of the errors of his predecessors Louis XIV. and 
XV., it would be commonly said, without hesi- 
tation, that he endured punishment on their ac- 
count, and had to atone for or expiate their 
crimes. Here, what is merely the consequence 
of the sin of another, is called, from some ana- 
logy between them, the punishment of one who 
has no personal guilt in the matter. Just such 
is the case here. Mortality was to Adam the 
punishment of his sin, strictly speaking. His 
posterity are also mortal, since a mortal cannot 
beget those who are immortal. With them, 
therefore, mortality is the natural consequence 
of Adam's sin, but not their punishment, in the 
proper juridico-philosophical sense of the word, 
because they themselves had no share in the 
first transgression. Imputation, therefore, of 
the sin of Adam, in the strict sense of the word 
imputation, does not exist with regard to us, his 
posterity, since we only suffer the baleful con- 
sequences of the sin of the first man, of which 
we ourselves were not, however, guilty, and for 
which we cannot therefore be punished. Speak- 
ing, however, in a loose and popular way, we 
may call what we endure, punishment and im- 
putation. 

By this observation, many difficulties in other 
passages of scripture are obviated. So when 
Moses says, "the iniquity of the father shall be 
visited upon his posterity from generation to 
generation," (cf. Ezek. xviii. 4, 20, coll. Jer. 
xxxi. 29, 30,) he is to be understood as speak- 
ing in a popular way of the consequences which 
should befal the posterity of the wicked without 
any fault of their own. When, on the other 
hand, it is said, "the son shall not bear the 
iniquity of the father," it is to be understood as 
a maxim of justice, and to be taken in the literal 
sense. Paul himself says, in other passages, 
that man will be punished solely on his own 
account. Rom. ii. 6, i. 18, seq.; Gal. vi. 5; 
2 Cor. v. 10. In these he speaks sensu proprio 
etforensi. He also teaches expressly, that re- 
ward and punishment do not depend upon na- 
tural birth and derivation, Rom. ix. 11; and 
Jesus rejects the opinion suggested by his dis- 
ciples, that the misfortune of the one born blind 
was to be regarded as the imputation of the 
guilt of his parents, John, ix. 2, 3. 

But why is language used in such a manner 
with regard to this subject in the scriptures'? 
The principal reason why the word punishment 
is used in this connexion lies in the fact that 
there is, in all the mortal descendants of Adam, 
a preponderance of carnal appetites and pas- 
sions, and that they are invariably seduced by 
these into actual sin, and so become punish- 
able. There is not one upon earth who re- 
mains uncorrupted, and consequently all are 
rendered lirble to punishment. Vide Rom. v. 
12 ; Ephes ii. 3. God would not treat all men 



as sinners did they not in this respect resemble 
Adam. 

We find, accordingly, that the passage in 
Rom. v. was never understood in the ancient 
Grecian church, down to the fourth century, to 
teach imputation, in a strictly philosophical and 
judicial sense; certainly Origen and the writers 
immediately succeeding him, exhibit nothing 
of this opinion. They regard bodily death as a 
consequence of the sin of Adam, and not as a 
punishment, in the strict and proper sense of 
this term. Thus Chrysostom says, upon Rom. 
V. 12, 'Y-xzivov 7i£0ovto$ (ASc^i), xo.1 ot fx-r] tyd- 
yovtzc, arch tov ^v'kov, ysyovaatv £~| txtivov ^v^toC. 
And Cyril (Adv. Anthropom. c. 8) says, ol yz- 
yovores if avtov {'A8djx), ib$ art 6 qfcaytov, y^taptoi 
ysyova(i.£v. 

The Latin church, on the other hand, was the 
proper seat of the strict doctrine of imputation. 
There they began to interpret the words of Paul, 
as if he were a scholastic and logical writer. 
One cause of their misapprehending so entirely 
the spirit of this passage was, that the word im- 
putare (a word in common use among civilians 
and in judicial affairs) had been employed in the 
Latin versions in rendering ver. 13 of Rom. v. ; 
and that £$' <L (ver. 12) had been translated in 
quo, and could refer, as they supposed, to nobody 
but Adam. This opinion was then associated 
with some peculiar philosophical ideas then pre- 
valent in the West, and from the whole a doc- 
trine de imputatione was formed, in a sense 
wholly unknown to the Hebrews, to the New 
Testament, and to the Grecian church . We may 
hence see the reason of the fact, that the Gre- 
cian teachers — e. g., those in Palestine — took 
sides with Pelagius against the teachers of the 
African church. 

The following are the principal theories which 
have been adopted in the Western church, to 
illustrate the mode cf imputation, and to vindi- 
cate its justice. 

(1) The oldest hypothesis is that which af- 
firmed that all the posterity of Adam were, in 
the most literal sense, already in him, and sin- 
ned in him — in h4s person ; and that Adam's sin 
is therefore justly imputed by God to all his pos- 
terity. This hypothesis has its ground in the 
opinion that the souls of children have existed, 
either in reality, or at least potentially, in their 
parents, and this as far back as Adam ; and that 
in this way the souls of all his posterity partici- 
pated in the actions done in his person, although 
they themselves were never after conscious of 
such action. Vide s. 57, II. 3. This was the 
doctrine of the Traduciani, which TWtiillian also 
professed. And it was upon this ground prin- 
cipally that the strict doctrine of imputation was 
maintained in the Latin church ; even Ambro- 
sius placed his defence of it upon this basis. 
But this doctrine was annied with the greatest 



276 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



zeal by Augustine, in opposition to Pelagius, and 
after his time was generally received in the 
Western church; although Augustine himself 
was often doubtful in respect to Traducianism. 
What Paul had taught in a loose, popular way, 
respecting the imputation of Adam's sin, was 
now taken by Augustine and his followers in a 
strict, philosophical, and legal sense. Ambro- 
sius says, Omnes in primo homine (tty w) pecca- 
vimus, et culpse successio ab uno in omnes trans- 
fusa est. Augustine says, In Jldamo omnes pec- 
carunt, in lumbis Adami erat genus kumanum. 
Also, Infantes ab eo trahunt peccati reatiim, mor- 
tisque supplicium. For a full collection of texts 
on this controversy, vide Vossius, Historia Pe- 
lagiana. [Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 80, An- 
merk. 1, 2. — Tr.] In form, these declarations 
have an apparent resemblance to the doctrine of 
Paul; but the resemblance is only apparent. 
Augustine understands in a strictly philosophical 
sense what, as we have seen above, was said by 
Paul in a popular manner. 

In opposition to Augustine, Pelagius taught 
that Adam hurt himself alone, and not his pos- 
terity, by his transgression, and that it would be 
unjust for God to impute his guilt to his innocent 
descendants' — a doctrine evidently opposed to 
that of Paul. 

As the theory of Augustine rests upon a base- 
less hypothesis, it does not need a formal refuta- 
tion. It was the prevailing theory among the 
schoolmen, and even throughout the sixteenth 
century, and until about the middle of the seven- 
teenth, when it was contested by the French re- 
formed theologians, Joshua Placseus, and Moses 
Amyraldus, who, however, were violently op- 
posed. In England, too, it was contested by 
Thomas Burnet. The advocates of this theory 
endeavoured to defend it by means of the theory 
of spermatic animalculse, which arose about the 
middle of the eighteenth century. When, by 
means of the magnifying glass, these spermatic 
animalculee were observed, the thought occur- 
red that they were the cause of impregnation. 
And some then affirmed that the souls of all men 
were in Adam, had their seat in these invisible 
animalculse, participated in everything which he 
did, and consequently sinned with him. While, 
therefore, the Biblical theologians of the protest- 
ant church have justly held fast the doctrine of 
imputation, they have abandoned the theory of 
Augustine, because this does not accord either 
with reason or with scripture, and because it 
furnishes no adequate vindication for God in this 
procedure. In place of this theory, our theolo- 
gians have substituted others, either invented by 
themselves or adopted from different authorities. 
(2) Many have inferred the justice of imputa- 
tion from the supposition that Adam was not 
only the natural or seminal, bnt also the moral 
head of me human race, or even its representative 



and federal head. They suppose, accordingly, 
that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, on the 
same principle on which the doings of the head 
of a family, or of the plenipotentiary of a state, 
are imputed to his family or state, although they 
had no personal agency in his doings. In the 
same way, they suppose Christ took the place 
of all men, and that what he did is imputed to 
them. According to this theory, God entered 
into a league or covenant with Adam, and so 
Adam represented and took the place of the 
whole human race. This theory was invented 
by some schoolmen, and has been adopted by 
many in the Romish and protestant church since 
the sixteenth century, and was defended even in 
the eighteenth century by some Lutheran theolo- 
gians, as Pfaff of Tubingen, some of the follow- 
ers of Wolf, (e. g., Carpzov, in his » Comm. de 
Imputatione facti proprii et alieni"} and Baum- 
garten, in his Dogmatik, and disputation, "e?e 
imputatione peccati Adamitici." But it was more 
particularly favoured by the reformed theolo- 
gians, especially by the disciples of Cocceius, at 
the end of the seventeenth and commencement 
of the eighteenth century — e. g., by Witsius, in 
his " (Economia fcederum." They appeal to 
Hosea, vi. 7, " They transgressed the covenant, 
like Adam" — i. e., broke the divine laws. But 
where is it said that Adam was their federal head, 
and that his transgression is imputed to them ? 
On this text Morus justly observes, "est mera 
comparatio Judaeorum peccantium cum Adamo 
peccante." Other texts are also cited in behalf 
of this opinion. 

But, for various reasons, this theory cannot be 
correct. And, (a) The descendants of Adam 
never empowered him to be their representative, 
and to act in their name, (b) It cannot be shewn 
from the Bible that Adam was informed that the 
fate of all his posterity was involved in his own. 
(c) If the transgression of Adam is imputed, by 
right of covenant, to all his posterity, then, in 
justice, all their transgressions should be again 
imputed to him as the guilty cause of all their 
misery and sin. What a mass of guilt, then, 
would come upon Adam! But of all this, no- 
thing is said in the scriptures, {d) The impu- 
tation of the righteousness of Christ cannot be 
alleged in support of this theory. For this is 
imputed to men only by their own will and 
consent. This hypothesis has been opposed, 
with good reason, by John Taylor, in his work 
on original sin, which will be hereafter noticed. 

(3) Others endeavour to deduce the doctrine 
of imputation from the scientia media of God, or 
from his foreknowledge of what is conditionally 
possible. The sin of Adam, they say, is im- 
puted to us, because God foresaw that each one 
of us would have committed it if he had been 
in Adam's stead, or placed in his circum- 
stances. Even Augustine says, that the sin of 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



277 



Adam is 'imputed to us propter consensionem, or 
eonsensum prxsumptum. This theory has been 
advanced, in modern times, by Reusch, in his 
Introductio in Theologiam revelatam," and in 
Brunquell's work, "Die gute Sache Gottes, 
bey Zurechnung des Falls;" Jena, 1749. But 
it is a new sort of justice, which would allow 
us to be punished for sins which we never 
committed, or never designed to commit, but 
only might possibly have committed under cer- 
tain circumstances. Think a moment, how 
many sins we all should have committed if God 
had suffered us to come into circumstances of 
severe temptation. An innocent man might, by 
this rule, be punished as a murderer, because, 
had he lived at Paris on St. Bartholomew's 
Night in 1572, he might, from mistaken zeal, 
have killed a heretic. 

(4) Since none of these hypotheses satisfac- 
torily explain the matter, the greater part of the 
moderate and Biblical theologians of the pro- 
testant church are content with saying, what is 
manifestly the doctrine of the Bible, that the 
imputation of Adam's sin consists in the prevail- 
ing mortality of the human race, and that this is 
not to be regarded as imputation in the strict 
judicial sense, but rather as the consequence of 
Adam's transgression, perhaps, as is thought by 
some, the physical consequence of eating the 
forbidden fruit, which may certainly be inferred 
rom Gen. iii. The strict doctrine of immediate 
mputation was by no means universal among 
the protestant theologians of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, and, as is justly remarked by Pfaff, Weis- 
mann, Burnet, and others, was to many of them 
unknown even in name. The common theory, 
de capite morali sive foederali is not to be found 
in the symbols. 

For the purposes of popular instruction let 
therefore the following Biblical statement suf- 
fice : "Adam, on account of his transgression 
of the divine law, was punished with death, and 
from thenceforward became mortal ; and being 
himself mortal, he could beget only mortal de- 
scendants. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 48 — 50, coll. Gen. 
v. 3. Hence we and all men are mortal ; and the 
ground, of this mortality lies in our progenitors, 
and this mortality is a consequence of their 
transgression." In conformity with these views, 
let the teacher explain the passage in Rom. v., 
and abstain from all subtleties and learned hy- 
potheses. 

Note. — Works on Imputation and Original 
Sin. (I) In opposition to imputation sensu 
strictiori, and also the doctrine concerning ori- 
ginal sin. Of these there have been many 
among the English theologians of the eighteenth 
century. Vide especially Dan. Whitby, De 
imputatione divina prccati Adamitici ; Londini, 
1711; translated into German, with notes, by 
Semler, 1775; John Taylor, Scriptural Doc- 



trine of Original Sin, in three parts, also trans- 
lated into German. At a later period these doc- 
trines were investigated by the protestant di- 
vines and philosophers of Germany, and partly 
opposed — e. g., by Tollner, Theol. LTntersuch- 
ungen, St. ii. lib. Rom. v.; Eberhard, Apologie 
des Socrates, th. i. and ii. ; Steinbart, System 
der Gluckseligkeitslehre; Jerusalem, Betracht- 
ungen, th. ii. 

2. In defence of these doctrines, and in oppo- 
sition to the works above mentioned. Joh. 
Andr. Cramer, Exercit.ationes de peccato origi- 
nali ad versus Jo. Taylor; Kopenhagen, 1766-67. 
Sixt, Priifung des Systems, u. s. w. st. i. 
(in opposition to Steinbart.) The work enti- 
tled, " Freymiithige Priifung des Steinbart'shen 
Christenthums" (1792), contains also many 
excellent and just observations. Seller, Von 
der Erbsiinde, oder dem naturlichen Verderben 
— a work directed in general against the ancient 
and modern objections to this doctrine, especially 
those of Eberhard and Steinbart; J. D. Michaelis, 
Gedanken iiber die Lehre der Schrift von der 
Siinde und Genugthuung, Gottingen u. Bremen, 
1779, 8vo, one of the most important works in 
relation to this subject. He lay the doctrine of 
the Bible at the foundation, and then endeavours 
to shew its agreement with reason and experi- 
ence, and to vindicate it against objections. 
This work contains many very excellent and 
ingenious observations. There are also valu- 
able remarks on this subject in Storr's work, 
" Zweck des Todes Jesu," and in his Comment- 
ary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cf. Kant, 
Vom radikalen Bosen. In, illustration of the 
history of this doctrine, cf. Walch, Historia 
doctrinre de peccato originis ; Jense, 1738 ; Sem- 
ler, Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, prefixed to 
Banmgarten's " Polemik." 

[The work of President Edwards "On Ori- 
ginal Sin" deserves mention among the most 
celebrated works of European theologians on 
this subject. Among the later and more tho- 
rough German writers on the subject of impu- 
tation are, Schleiermacher, Usteri, Tholuck, 
Nitzch. The former of these has vindicated 
some of the highest points of Calvinism by the 
most profound reasoning. The others follow 
more or less the general system which he has 
developed. — Tr.] 

SECTION LXXVIL 

IN WHAT THE NATURAL DEPRAVITY OF MAX CON 
SISTS ; ITS APPELLATIONS IN THE BIRLE ; WHERE 
IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL SEAT IN MAN; AND HOW 
ITS EXISTENCE MAY BE PROVED FROM THE HOLT 
SCRIPTURES. 

I. In what Natural Depravity consists. 

The descriptions given of it by theologians 
are very different as to the words employed. 
2 A 



278 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Melancthon describes the peecatum originis as 
an inclination or disposition to all evil, which, 
however, does not always manifest itself in the 
same way, or in the same degree, and which 
does not appear at once, but gradually, and in 
all men. Others describe it as that disposition 
oi the soul by which evil desires have an exist- 
ence in it, or rather, spring up whenever occa- 
sion offers, &c. But they all agree, at last, that 
the essence of natural depravity is the disturbed 
balance of the powers or inclinations of man, 
or the preponderance of the carnal desires over 
reason. It lies in the fact, that the lower nature 
of man, made by God to obey, is not submissive 
to the reason, as the power which should give 
law, and govern. The following definition may 
therefore be given of the moral depravity of 
man, in conformity both with experience and 
with scripture : it is that tendency to sinful pas- 
sions or unlawful propensities which is perceived 
in man vjhenever objects of desire are placed before 
him and laws are laid upon him, Rom. vii. This 
want of harmony between the two natures being 
but too clearly perceived, and being justly re- 
garded as an evil fraught with ruinous conse- 
quences to man, it was early maintained among 
the Hebrews and other nations, that it could not 
have existed in the original state of man. We 
see everywhere that men have felt it necessary 
to adopt this supposition. It is, moreover, in 
accordance with the Bible. Vide s. 75, II. 2. 
We have already considered (vide s. 74) how 
far unaided reason can go in clearing up this 
subject; we now come to examine what we are 
taught respecting it by the scriptures. 

Theologians remark here, by way of cau- 
tion, that we must carefully distinguish between 
the essential and accidental deficiencies and im- 
perfections of our nature. Essential imperfec- 
tions would always have been seen in man, 
owing to the limitation of his nature, even al- 
though he had not fallen. But these imperfec- 
tions would have implied no fault and no de- 
pravity. Depravity in any one presupposes a 
better state, from which he has deteriorated. 
Hence our essential imperfections cannot proper- 
ly be considered as belonging to our natural 
depravity — e. g., man cannot be accounted de- 
praved in consequence of the ignorance in which 
he is born, and the false judgments which spring- 
merely from that ignorance, nor for the pleasure 
which he takes in objects of sense, when sim- 
ply considered; but only for the other class of 
imperfections, those that are contingent. Among 
these may be placed the violence of the pas- 
sions, their obvious preponderance over reason, 
and the hindrances we meet with from this 
source to the knowledge of the truth, and to our 
progress in holiness. This is shewn by the 
example of Eve. She was, even before her fall, 



in many respects ignorant and inexperienced ; 
she judged incorrectly respecting God ; she felt 
too the motions of sense ; but as yet she was 
uncorrupted. But after she fell she was the 
subject of those other accidental imperfections 
which now constitute human depravity. 

II. How Depravity is named in the Bible, and where 
it is located in Man. 

(1) The word $£opa is used in scripture to 
designate the entire corrupt constitution of man 
in a moral respect. According to common usage 
it denotes a constitution and state which is not 
as it should be. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 19 ; Ephes. iv. 
22; 1 Tim. vi. 5. 

(2) This depravity ($£opa) of man exerts a 
powerful influence upon his soul, his under- 
standing, and will. Vide Rom. vi. 14 — 23 ; 
Ephes. ii. 3. The body is, however, plainly the 
principal seat of the carnal appetites and desires, 
and hence the origin of this depravity is to be 
sought chiefly in the body. Vide Rom. vii. 5, 
23; vi. 12, seq. And all the ancient heathen 
philosophers, who considered the preponderance 
of this lower animal nature as the source of 
human depravity, made the body the principal 
seat of this evil, and in doing so were supported 
by observations familiar to all. 

(a) The ancient Grecian philosophers, Pytha- 
goras, Plato, Aristotle, the stoics, (vide s. 74, 
I.,) considered matter, and the human body as 
consisting of matter, to be the seat and source 
of evil. With these writers, the Hellenistic 
Jews agreed. Vide Book of Wisdom, ix. 15, 
"The decaying body burdens the soul, and the 
earthy tabernacle presses down the thinking 
spirit." Of the sam« mind were most of the 
early Christian fathers — e. g., Justin the Mar- 
tyr, Origen, (although some passages in his 
works appear to contradict this,) Hilarius, and 
Augustine himself. This doctrine was carried 
to a great length and very much abused by some 
heretics who sprang up in the Christian church, 
particularly in the East. They regarded matter 
as in itself an evil existence, not deriving its 
being from God, nor depending upon him. So 
the Gnostics and the Manicheans. 

(6) The doctrine that the body of man is the 
chief seat of human weaknesses and imperfec- 
tions, and also the germ of moral evil, was 
widely diffused among the eastern nations in 
the remotest antiquity, and was adopted by the 
writers of the Old Testament, as may be clearly 
seen from their use of the word -\fr3, (oap|.) 
This word signifies originally the human body, 
then, men themselves, but always with the im- 
plied idea that they are frail, imperfect, and 
mortal, or, in a moral respect, that they are in 
clined to err and sin. Vide Gen. vi. 12; viii. 
22 ; Isaiah, xl. 6, coll. Matt. xxvi. 41 ; John, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



279 



iii. 6. On the other hand the word nm (Ttvsvpa) 
denotes what is spiritual, moral, divine, perfect, 
holy, &c. 

(c) This doctrine, the first traces of which 
we find in the earlier Jewish books, was gra- 
dually developed, and was at last exhibited in 
the New Testament with the greatest clearness. 
Paul places <jdpf in opposition to vovs or nvei\ua, 
and depicts the controversy between the two, 
and the hindrances which the sap! opposes to 
the rtvsvfia in the knowledge of the truth, and 
holiness of walk. Vide Rom. vii. IS, 23. 
W ith him ypoviiv and 7ispi7iatEtv xatd odpxa 
mean tc indulge sinful desires, Rom. viii. 1, 5; 
and ^t/.rua, typorrua, vov$ oapxoj, signify, the 
corrupt, depraved disposition of human nature — 
the propensity to sin, Gal. vi. 13; Ephes. ii. 3. 
Cf. irt&ufuac oapxixai, bodily, sensual desires, 
1 Peter, ii. 11 ; also 6 oapxixbs (di£pu7to$.) In 
Rom. vi. 6, 16, *Paul says that the Christian 
should deprive the a^ua d ( u apT'iaj of its power, 
and not suffer himself to be subject ertt^utatj 
oJifiatos ; and in Rom. vii. 13 — 25, still more 
plainly ; he knew, he says, that in him (or rather 
in his body, £v aapxi) the seat of moral good was 
not to be found, (ovx oixd dya^ov.) He was 
not, indeed, wanting in good will to live righte- 
ously, but in power to perform his will. He 
often could not accomplish the good which he 
heartily approved from his inmost moral feel- 
ings; and, on the contrary, he often did the evil 
which he disallowed. And thus he knew- that 
sin — i. e., a disposition to sin, sinful depravity — 
dwelt in him. His spirit (io-us, 6 saa ar^pcortoj) 
approved the divine law, and acknowledged it 
good and useful ; but in his members Qvpsteat — 
i. e., iv ou),iiaf i) there was another law, the law 
of sin, (diciamen semuum,) which was opposed 
to the law of God, and which ruled over him. 
Hence he exclaims, " miserable man that I 
am, who shall deliver me from this mortal body, 
(atoua tov §avdto$ toirtov.)" And at last he 
thanks God that through Christ he has granted 
him this deliverance, and that he was no more 
under the necessity of yielding obedience to his 
depraved appetites, although they still conti- 
nued, and often resumed their power. 

The word ^vzwds, ^vz<-xb$ dv^purtoj is also 
often used in the scriptures, denoting that one 
does not follow his reason, but is wholly under 
the influence of his bodily appetites and desires, 
and will give heed only to what he learns 
through his senses, and so despises the instruc- 
tion which God has given respecting spiritual 
things. Thus Jude, ver. 19 ; for B>£J and tyuzy 
often signify the impulses, desires, and pro- 
pensities of our lower nature; and 1 Cor. ii. 14, 
where -4.^1x05 d^pwytoj is one who scorns divine 
instruction, and chooses rather sense, darkness, 
and delusion; one who has no organ for what 
is above sense, and no taste for divine instruc- 



tion, — the same with aapxixos, 1 Cor. iii. 1. 
The inordinate desires, those which are not as 
they should be, are often called in scripture, by 
way of eminence, iru^vjAta, S7t<.$vuicu crapxoj, 1 
John, ii. 16, — commonly rendered in the Vul- 
gate concupiscentia ,• hence this word is adopted 
in ecclesiastical Latinity. Vide Morus, p. 107, 
n. 3, 4. 

(J) From the passages new cited, and from 
the known sense in which the words above men- 
tioned were anciently used, it is plain that those 
writers who make the soul the chief seat and 
original source of corruption very much mistake. 
Into this error Buddeus has fallen, as appears 
from his dissertation, " De anima sede peccati 
originalis principale;" Jenas, 1725; and in this 
error he is followed by Seiler. It is equally cer- 
tain, however, that this originally bodily disor- 
der has a powerful influence upon the soul, on 
account of the intimate connexion between these 
two essential parts of man. It acts (a) upon the 
understanding, since by means of it the objects 
of knowledge are placed before the mind in an 
entirely false light, so»that the understanding 
holds that which is false for true, what is evil 
for good, and the reverse. (^) L T pon the will 
and the actions, so that what has been thus false- 
ly represented by the senses to the understand- 
ing as good and right, is now desired and ac- 
complished. The evil consequences of this are, 
that man prefers apparent to real good, that he 
allows himself to be more governed by his 
senses than by his understanding, and often 
does that which he himself disapproves, and so 
chooses and acts against his own principles and 
his better views. Vide Rom. vii. 8, 19, 23 ; Gal. 
v. 17, "The desire of the flesh is often opposed 
to the desire of the spirit, so that man is often 
unable to accomplish his good purposes." The 
soul, as Paul teaches, is so far weak as the ani- 
mal propensities (rra^uara aapxoj) are strong; 
and so feeble that it is the slave of these pro- 
pensities ; and although it may have a better 
conviction, is not able to carry it into effect, but 
is so carried away that it must do what itself 
disapproves. And this is the benefit of Christ 
(zdpioua), that he saves us from the power of 
sin, as well as from its punishment. 

Note 1. — Care must be taken here that the 
doctrine of the injury which we sustain from the 
body and the inordinate appetites of which it 
is the seat, be not carried too far, as it has been 
by Less, and other modern theologians. This 
extreme in the doctrine very naturally leads to 
dangerous perversions ; and we might expect 
that it would lead many to resort to suicide, in 
order to free themselves from the burdensome 
prison of the body. And indeed suicide was 
justified on this ground by the stoics, and other 
ancient philosophers. On this subject it is im- 
portant to bear in mind the great advantages 



280 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



which, as we are taught in the scriptures, we 
possess from the connexion of the rational soul 
with the body in oar present state. Vide s. 74. 
The false idea of the ancient Pythagoreans and 
Platonists that the body is a prison where the 
soul is incarcerated for its punishment, was held 
also by many of the mystics and Platonists 
among the old Jews and Christians; but it has 
no foundation in the scriptures. The sacred 
writers never require us, as Grecian philosophers 
and Christian mystics often do, to eradicate our 
bodily appetites and desires, (which, if it were 
possible, would destroy the very nature of man,) 
but only to control them and subject them to 
reason. Christian morals therefore insists, not 
that man should leave off particular sins, or 
suppress particular outbreakings of unlawful 
desire, but that a new turn should be given to 
all the natural desires ; and this is the proper 
tendency of Christian morals. It designs to 
bring man from the love of the world to the love 
of God; from an improper self-love to the love 
of others ; from a love to sensible and perishing 
things to a love of spiritual and eternal good. 
Such are the instructions which Christ every- 
where gives. Vide John, iii. 3 — 21. It is a false 
assertion that the inculcation of the doctrine of 
the natural propensity to evil has a tendency 
to discourage men from the pursuit of good ; 
when properly exhibited, this doctrine has ex- 
actly the opposite effect, and excites to the vi- 
gorous employment of our powers. The great 
point in this doctrine is, that the man who 
would fulfil his destination must depart from 
evil, and, not content with merely cultivating 
and developing his powers, must experience a 
radical reformation. 

[Note 2. — Does the depravity of our nature con- 
sist in the inordinateness of our bodily desires ? 

From the views exhibited in this section it 
appears that our author adopts the affirmative 
of this question. He sees in man a conflict be- 
tween reason and those lower principles which 
have their seat in the body, and thinks of no ul- 
terior or more radical evil. To such a concep- 
tion of human depravity he is necessarily brought 
by his theory respecting the consequences of the 
fall, making them to consist chiefly in the dis- 
arrangement of our bodily constitution. In be- 
half of these views he appeals, as the reader has 
perceived, to the universal doctrine of pagan 
philosophy on this subject, to the familiar ob- 
servation of the actual inordinateness of the 
bodily appetites and their preponderance over 
reason, but principally to the scriptural phrase- 
ology employed to designate the native charac- 
ter of man, and which, taken in its lirst etymo- 
logical sense, seems to indicate that the body is 
the ultimate cause and principal seat of human 
depravity. 

This part of our author's system is of such 



radical importance, and so materially affects the 
views we must entertain of the other doctrines 
of Christianity, and especially of the atonement, 
that it ought not to pass without examination. 

As to the first argument above mentioned, it 
will be readily conceded that this view of our 
natural character and state harmonizes w 7 ell with 
pagan philosophy. It has a general resemblance 
even to the Indian and Persian religious sys- 
tems, as exhibited by the Schlegels and other 
modern writers on the East. But it corresponds 
more exactly with the Platonic system, which 
fully recognises the conflict between the rational 
principle, (the xoycxov), and the irrational, ani- 
mal principle, (the aXoyov.) And while it re- 
sembles these systems, it must be said also that 
it is liable to the same objection which has often 
been urged against them — viz., that in some 
way, by supposing either an eternal intelligent 
principle of evil, or a blind destiny, or some de- 
fective bodily organization, or by some other 
external necessity, they account for the origin 
and prevalence of evil, instead of charging it 
upon the perverted use of the moral powers of 
men. But to all such conceptions of our moral 
condition Christianity stands opposed, espe- 
cially in the doctrine of the atonement, which, 
by is proffer of forgiveness, presupposes, not 
misfortune merely, but guilt, on the part of man, 
and which, in its whole bearing, aims at a spi- 
ritual and not a physical evil. It is in this way 
that Christianity furnishes a new point of view 
for observing the character of man, and discloses 
the essential nature and deeper root of evil. 

The fact alleged in the second argument — 
viz., that there is a visible preponderance of 
sense or of bodily appetites over reason, is also 
readily conceded; but can we conclude from 
this fact that this disorder is to be attributed tc 
the body, and the affections having their seat in 
it? Would not the just balance between the 
higher and lower principles of our nature be 
equally disturbed by altering the weight in 
either scale 1 ? If in the original constitution of 
our nature, the lower principles of the animal 
life on one side were balanced on the other by 
the higher principles of our intellectual life, not 
by themselves, but in connexion with a communi- 
cated divine life, of which they are the organ, 
(as we shall attempt to shew,) then the mere 
loss or withdrawment of this divine life would 
be followed of course by a loss of this original 
equipoise, and the undue predominance of the 
lower principles. Thus it can be conceived that 
the inordinateness of the bodily appetites, in 
which human depravity might seem at first view 
to consist, so far from constituting its real es- 
sence, may be only the necessary result of an 
ulterior cause, the defect of the higher princi- 
ples. Indeed, considering the nature of these 
higher principles, and their rightful supremacy 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



281 



how can their being drawn away and enslaved 
by principles so inferior and subordinate be ac- 
counted for, except from some defect in the spi- 
ritual part, to say nothing of positively evil in- 
clinations seated there 1 

The argument derived from the use of the 
scriptural terms nfc'3 and crapi, and their syno- 
nymes, is very plausible; and when Paul calls 
the v6[aos -tr.g oapxos also a v6[io$ iv iolc, fiixsei, 
the question might seem to be decided. But if 
this is difficult on one side, it is not less so on 
the other, that pride, envy, and other feelings, 
the most remote from the influence of the body, 
are derived by Paul from tfdpi, as its immediate 
fruits. Of. Gal. v. 19—22 ; Col. ii. 18. Other 
reasons against the meaning assigned by our 
author to these scriptural terms will appear in 
the sequel of this note. 

The following development of the scriptural 
doctrine respecting the natural state of man is 
offered for consideration, in the belief that it is 
Augustinian and Edwardsean on the particular 
points in which these systems differ from the 
Pelagian and Arminian anthropologies. 

In the first place ; that principle, state, or dis- 
position of human nature, whatever it may be, 
by which it is designated as corrupt or evil, is 
more usually denominated crapi, one who is in 
this state, crapxucoj ; the living and acting in it 
are described by the formulae, rtBpirtatslv tv aapxi, 
x&ta oupxa ^>jv, (ppovslv, x. t. %. The same state 
is also described, though less commonly, by 
other terms nearly synonymous with these. 

Secondly. The most important clue to the 
meaning of the term sapi, upon which so much 
depends, and which is so difficult of interpreta- 
tion, is the fact that it is placed in constant and 
direct contrast to the term 7tvsvy.a, — so much so, 
that it seems necessarily to imply a state exactly 
opposite to that denoted by the latter term. The 
opposition between these two principles is point- 
ed out in the following passages — viz., Rom. 
vii. 25; viii. 1, seq. ; 1 Cor. iii. 4; Gal. v. 19, 
seq. Hence it is obvious, that in order to attain 
distinct and specific conceptions of the meaning 
of crapi, we must fully understand the import of 
the term 7tvsvfia, with which it is contrasted. 
If nvsvfia denotes merely the intelligent, ration- 
al principle, (the %oyi,x6v,) then may cra'pi desig- 
nate merely the irrational, bodily appetites and 
desires, (the oXoyov.) But if rivsvp.^ have a 
higher import, then to suppose crapi to be still 
limited, as before, to the designation of merely 
bodily appetites, would be to lose sight, of the 
direct and invariable opposition in which these 
terms are placed. 

Thirdly. It would be a very superficial view 
of the import of 7tvsv/xa, and contrary to the 
whole scriptural usage, to understand by it the 
mere intelligence or reason of man ; on the con- 
trary it denotes this reason, considered as the or- 
36 



gan of the higher divine life imparted to man, and 
which is itself more properly the Ttvsvua, and 
upon which the spirit, as a natural faculty with 
which man is endowed, depends absolutely for 
its exercise. This, it seems to us, is the gene- 
ric idea of the term nvsvfxa, although sometimes 
it denotes more prominently the faculty of the 
mind, and at others, the divine life itself of 
which the mind is the recipient; just as^dWtoj 
is used to denote either the natural or the spiri 
tual part of the whole penalty of the law, of 
which it is the generic name, according as the 
one or the other of these is more prominently in 
the mind of the writer. And so the rtvev/xaTfixos 
is one who not merely possesses reason and go- 
verns his animal appetites by it, but one who 
partakes of this higher, divine life, who stands 
in living communion with God, receives the su- 
pernatural gifts of his grace, by which the na- 
tural principles of reason are strengthened and 
enabled to maintain the proper mastery over the 
lower principles of sense. Accordingly, crapi 
must indicate that state of man in which he is 
destitute of this higher life, either having lost 
it, or never attained to the possession of it, — in 
which the principles of humanity, both the higher 
and lower, are left to themselves; in short, the 
state in which man is without the Spirit of God 
— a state which, from this its privative charac- 
rer, might be appropriately denominated unre- 
generacy, or ungodliness. And the capxixos is 
one who not merely has inordinate bodily appe- 
tites, and obeys the dictamen sensuum, but one 
who does not receive and enjoy the presence of 
the Spirit of God. And so Calvin, in his Comm. 
on John, iii. 6, explains crapi to mean the whole 
natural man, considered as without the new 
birth, or the divine life; and well remarks, "/n- 
sulse theologastri ad partem quam vacant sen- 
suakm restringunt." 

Fourthly. The correctness of the account 
here given of the import of crapi is strikingly 
confirmed by the manner in which its syno- 
nymes are used throughout the New Testament. 
Thus ^Tj^txo? is used (e. g., 1 Cor. ii. 14 and 
Jude, ver. 19) to designate one who has not the 
Spirit, and receives not the things of the Spirit. 
And in Eph. iv. 22, the rtcaatoj cn^pwto?, corrupt 
according to the deceitful lusts, is opposed to 
the being renewed. And so everywhere the 
destitution of the supernatural grace of God and 
of his life-giving Spirit is the prominent idea in 
these and similar terms. 

Fifthly. But thus far w r e attain only a nega- 
tive conception on this subject. What positive 
idea, then, shall we form of the state of man 
destitute of the Divine Spirit, and estranged 
from Cod'? An answer to this question will 
bring us upon the highest dividing points be- 
tween the Augustinian and Pelagian anthropo- 
logies; for it was not in the doctrines which 
2a2 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



came most into discussion during the Pelagian 
controversies that the first and essential differ- 
ences between these systems lay; but in points 
further back, adopted unconsciously by these 
diverging tendencies, according to their differ- 
ent nature, and of which the doctrines in discus- 
sion were only the more remote results. 

According to Pelagius, man was originally, 
and is still, endowed by God with all the 
powers and faculties requisite to the ends of his 
being, and it depends only upon himself, in the 
exercise of his free will, to practise all good and 
fulfil his destination. In his system there is 
therefore no necessity for any supernatural in- 
fluences of grace, and scarcely any place for 
them ; certainly a destitution of them does not 
necessarily imply the corruption of nature, since 
without them man is adequate to holiness. But 
according to Augustine it is far otherwise ; and 
man stands in an absolute and constant depend- 
ence upon God, as the only source of truth and 
good ; the faculties of reason and will with 
which the Creator has endowed us are by no 
means complete in themselves and self-suffi- 
cient to the purposes for which they were 
given, but only organs to receive and reveal the 
higher life communicated from God, to whom 
they are related as the eye to the sun; and this, 
not merely through the contingency of the fall, 
but originally and essentially ; so that the loss 
of this imparted divine life must be followed by 
the powerlessness of the higher principles of our 
nature, the predominance of the lower, and so 
the corruption of the whole man. We have 
thus a contrast between a state of grace and of 
nature, between the spiritual and natural man,: — 
the former participating in divine life through 
fellowship with God, and consequently superior 
to the baser and lower principles ; the latter, 
estranged from this life, and so fallen into en- 
tire disorder, inability to good, and moral cor- 
ruption. Such is the positive idea of crapf, and 
this is the being in thejlesh, or being carnal, so 
often spoken of in the New Testament. 

The views of Edwards, which are exhibited 
so lucidly and even beautifully in his work on 
" Original Sin," (p. 330, and especially p. 427, 
seq. Worces. ed.,) correspond entirely with 
those of Augustine. "The case with man was 
plainly this : — When God made man at first he 
implanted in him two kinds of principles. There 
was an inferior kind, which may be called natu- 
ral, being the principles of mere human nature; 
such as self-love, with those natural appetites 
and passions which belong to the nature of man, 
in which his love to his own liberty, honour, 
and pleasure were exercised : these, when alone, 
and left to themselves, are what the scriptures 
sometimes czWJlesh. Besides these, there were 
superior principles, that were spiritual, holy, and 
divine, summarily comprehended in divine love. 



These principles may, in some sense, be called 
supernatural, being (however concreated or con- 
nate, yet) such as are above those principles that 
are essentially implied in, or necessarily result- 
ing from, and inseparably connected with, mere 
human nature; and being such as immediately 
depend on man's union and communion with 
God, or divine communications and influences 
of God's Spirit. These superior principles 
were given to possess the throne, and maintain 
an absolute dominion in the heart; the other, to 
be wholly subordinate and subservient. And 
while things continued thus, all things were in 
excellent order, peace, and beautiful harmony, 
and in their proper and perfect state." Again 
he says : " The withholding of special divine 
influence to impart and maintain the good prin- 
ciples, leaving the common natural principles 
to themselves, without the government of supe- 
rior divine principles, will certainly be followed 
with the corruption, yea, the total corruption of 
the heart. As light ceases in a room when the 
candle is withdrawn, so man is left in a state 
of darkness, woful corruption and ruin, nothing 
but flesh without spirit, when the Holy Ghost, 
that heavenly inhabitant, forsakes the house. 
The inferior principles, given only to serve, 
being alone, and left to themselves, of course 
become reigning principles ; the immediate con- 
sequence of which is, a turning of all things 
upside down. It were easy to shew, if hers 
were room for it, how every depraved disposi- 
tion would naturally arise from this privative 
original." (Abridged.) 

But we may attain to still more definite con- 
ceptions respecting the positive nature of the 
flesh, by considering it in opposition to the 
highest principle and spring of the spiritual 
state. This latter is ascertained by all just rea- 
soning about the nature of holiness, and by the 
first precept of the divine law, to be supreme 
love to God. Hence selfishness is to be regarded 
as constituting the central point of the natural 
unregenerate life. 

It will now be obvious how, in the catalogue 
of the works of the flesh, there should stand such 
feelings as have no conceivable connexion with 
the body, and cannot possibly be derived from 
its influence. 

But it may be asked, why, then, if it is not 
intended to exhibit the influence of the body, 
should the term cap! and its synonymes be em- 
ployed to designate the natural unrenewed state 
of man? To this question various answers 
might be given. One reason is offered by Ed- 
wards, p. 321 of the work cited above. But 
the reason suggested by Tholuck corresponds 
best with the view which has been given of the 
privative nature of the flesh. As the body is 
dead without the enlivening soul, so the spiiit 
of man is powerless and dead without the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



283 



higher life derived from the Spirit of God. And 
thus the mortal part of our animal nature is 
taken for the designation of our intellectual and 
moral being, as far as it is dead, powerless, and 
corrupt, from its being destitute of its higher 
spiritual life in God. 

This view of human depravity, in opposition 
to that w r hich makes it consist in the inordinate- 
ness of bodily appetites, derives its principal in- 
terest and importance from its bearing on the 
other doctrines of religion, and especially on the 
doctrine of atonement. As was hinted in a pre- 
vious note, if the depravity of man results from 
any physical disarrangement, then the remedy, 
in order to meet the exact point of the disease, 
and to reach its real source, ought to be applied 
to the physical, instead of the moral, nature of 
man. It is only on the supposition that selfish- 
ness is the root of evil, and the central principle 
of our natural life, and that man is dependent 
for holiness and happiness upon an imparted 
life, higher than that of reason, that the pro- 
visions of the atonement have any signifi- 
cance. — Tr.] 

III. How Native Depravity may be proved from 
the Bible. 
(1) In doing this, we should not employ, 
without selection, all those texts which speak 
of the moral depravity of man in general, or of 
that of particular men or nations ; for in many 
of these passages the sins and vices actually 
committed by men are the subjects of discourse, 
and not the disposition to sin inherent in man- 
kind. It was the intention of the sacred writers, 
in some of the examples w-hich they have given 
us of heinous transgressors, to shew to what sin 
leads, by what terrible consequences it is fol- 
lowed, in order to deter men from committing 
it, and not to teach that all men are the same, 
or have actually sunk to the same depth of vile- 
ness, although by reason of their inherent de- 
pravity they might all sink to the same depth. 
Among texts of this nature we may mention 
Psalm xiv. 3, seq., where the declaration, there 
is none that doeth good, &c, relates to the god- 
less persons mentioned ver. 1. And so Paul, 
Rom. iii. 10, proves from this passage that there 
were formerly among the Israelites very wicked 
men. And Job (chap. xiv. 4) alludes princi- 
pally to those actual transgressions by which 
men are brought into that state in which none 
can be guiltless in the sight of God. In Rom. 
iii. 9, seq., the apostle shews that the Jewish 
nation had no advantage over others in point of 
holiness or moral purity, and that there had al- 
ways been in it corrupt and vicious men. Nor 
can the text, Ps. li. 7, be cited in behalf of this 
doctrine. The mention of natural depravity does 
not harmonize with the context, and the phrase 
to be born in or with sin (i. e., to bring sin into 



the world with one) relates, as is evident from 
John, ix. 34, not to native depravity, which all 
have, but to the fact that he had not sinned for 
the first time in the particular crime of which he 
had then been guilty, but from his youth up had 
been a great sinner; for such is frequently the 
meaning of the term jtBp. Cf. Job, xxxi. 18; 
Ps. lviii. 4. It may also be said here that David 
does not make an universal affirmation, but only 
speaks of himself, designing to describe himself 
as a great sinner. 

(2) The proof that the doctrine of natural de- 
pravity and its propagation is founded in the 
holy scriptures, is rather to be made out from 
the comparison of many texts taken together, or 
viewed in their connexion. The doctrine itself 
is undoubtedly scriptural, although the Biblical 
writers did not always express themselves re- 
specting it with equal clearness and distinct- 
ness, and did not adopt all the consequences 
which have been since drawn from it by many 
from its connexion with other doctrines. The 
Bible speaks, as Musseus and Moms justly ob- 
serve, far more frequently in the concrete than in 
the abstract, respecting the sinful corruption of 
man; and in this respect it should be imitated 
by preachers in their popular instruction. Men 
will readily concede the general proposition, 
esse per d it am naturam humanam ,• but they are 
unwilling that this proposition should be ap- 
plied to themselves ,• while yet the effect of the 
personal self-application of this doctrine is most 
salutary to every individual. The scriptures 
teach us how to bring this doctrine home to 
every heart. 

The course of thought on this subject which 
the Hebrews followed, and which was gradually 
developed and transmitted to Christians, is as 
follows : — God created everything, and conse- 
quently the material from which the sensible 
world has originated, and from which he formed 
the human body. All this was good and per- 
fect in its kind — i. e., adapted to the attainment 
of its end or destination; Gen. i. The body of 
man was sustained by the tree of life, and happy 
and peaceful was his condition in the state of 
innocence. This Mosaic narrative is at the 
foundation of the whole. Men ate of the for- 
bidden tree of poison ; its taste brought sickness 
and death upon them, weakened their body, and 
destroyed its harmony. Violent passions now 
arose within them, and the just balance of the 
human powers and inclinations was destroyed, 
and sense obtained predominance over reason. 
Vide s. 75. All this is indeed spoken in Gen. 
ii. and iii. only respecting Adam and Eve, and 
nothing is there expressly said of the propaga- 
tion of this evil. But their posterity died after 
the same manner, and experienced the same 
predominance of sense and inclination to sin, 
from their youth up. Respecting the race of 



284 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



man sprung from Adam before the flood, the 
scripture saith, Gen. vi. 5, Their wickedness 
was great, and every imagination of the thoughts 
of their heart (la 1 ? hatfrra "tti-Sa, all the thoughts, 
desires, resolves, arising within them, and car- 
ried out into action; — "i£, nature, constitution, 
Ps. ciii. 14, [rather,/rame, whatever is made by 
an artificer, and so here the whole doing or ope- 
ration of the heart,] ) was daily nothing but evil. 
Nor did any change take place in those who 
lived after the flood ; but men were found to be 
the same as before, and so God repeated the 
same declaration respecting thern, Gen. viii. 22. 
And the constant experience of later times con- 
firmed the same truth. It was therefore justly 
concluded that this evil is transmitted from ge- 
neration to generation, and is the common here- 
ditary disease of the human race ; especially as 
this evil was seen to exist very early in all men, 
even from their youth (faap), and so could not 
have arisen merely from defect in education or 
the influence of bad example. All the imper- 
fections, therefore, which were understood by 
the Jews under the terms nfra and <jap| (viz., 
mortality, the predominance of sense, the bias 
to sin, &c.) were universally regarded by them 
as the melancholy consequences of the fall of 
the first mam Vide No. I. 3. In this, there- 
fore, lay the germ of all the evil and moral cor- 
ruption among men. It is obviously to these 
fundamental ideas that all the prophets refer 
back, when they speak of the sin and corruption 
so prevalent among men. And it is the same 
with the later Jewish writers after the Babylo- 
nian exile until the time of Christ — e. g., the 
writers of the Apocrypha. And so we find 
many traces of this in the old Jewish transla- 
tions of the Hebrew scriptures; in the Chaldaic 
Paraphrases, and in the Septuagint Version — e. 
g., in Job, xiv. 4, where it is said, none is pure, 
the Septuagint adds, even although he should live 
but for a single day upon the earth. 

On the same general views do Christ and the 
apostles proceed ; and Paul especially teaches 
this doctrine plainly and expressly, and im- 
proves it in order to set forth more conspicu- 
ously the high worth of Christianity, as that 
system in which more efficacious and sure re- 
medies against this evil were provided than the 
Jewish or any other religion ever possessed. In 
this way does he humble the pride of man, and 
describe the disorder of the soul in that cele- 
brated passage before cited, Rom. vii. 14, seq. 
He calls this innate evil, ver. 17, vj olxovaa iv 
e/jt,ob a/iapr'ta, ver. 23, tr'fpos vo/aos iv tol$ ustevu 
fiov, ver. 25, vouo$ a/xapT?La$. 

In the text Eph. ii. 3, the term tyv<si<; is vari- 
ously explained. The explanation of Morus, 
that it denotes the state of one who follows his 
sensual desires, as all men are naturally prone 
to do, is just, on account of the antithesis in ver. 



5, 10. $v(H$ properly signifies (a) origin, birth, 
from tyvc*, nascor ; so in Gal. ii. 15, tyvatt, 'Iou- 
8aios, Jews by birth, native Jews ; and so too in 
the classics. (6) It is also used both by the 
Jews and classics to denote the original, inborn, 
and peculiar properties, attributes, nature of a 
thing or person, the naturalis indoles or affectio ,• 
as Rom. xi. 21, 24, where the sense is, "even 
we who are born Jews, are, as to our nature — 
i. e., that natural disposition which we have 
exhibited from our youth up — equally deserving 
of punishment with other men, — i. e., native 
heathen; for all, Jews and Gentiles alike, are 
born with a dangerous predominance of sense, 
and deserving of the punishment of all the sons 
of Adam — viz., deaths 

After these texts, the passage, John, iii. 6, is 
easily explained : what is born of the flesh is 
flesh — i. e., from men who are weak, erring, 
and sinful, men of the same character are born. 
No one attains, therefore, by his mere birth, 
(e. g, as a Jew,) to any peculiar privileges from 
God ; these he attains only by being born again, 
by becoming a re generate man, morally changed. 
On principles like these do the sacred writers 
always proceed when they teach that all men, 
without exception, are sinners; John, iii. 6; 
Rom. iii. 9, 19. 

SECTION LXXVIII. 

OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF THIS COR- 
RUPTION ; ITS PROPAGATION ; ITS PUNISHABLE- 
NESS ; ALSO OF THE ORIGIN OF SINFUL DESIRES 
AMONG MEN, AND THEIR PUNISHABLENESS. 

I. Nature of Human Depravity. 

(1) It is universal. This implies, (a) that 
no man is wholly exempt from it, however dif- 
ferent may be the degrees and modifications in 
which it may exist. The universality of human 
depravity is proved, partly from the ^experience 
of all men and ages (vide s. 74), partly from 
the testimony of the holy scriptures. Many 
texts, indeed, treat of the sinful actions and 
moral corruption of men of mature life; but we 
are taught by the Bible to look for the first 
ground even of these in that human depravity 
or bias to sin without which sin itself would 
never have prevailed so universally ; s. 77, III. 
ad finem. 

The texts commonly referred to on this sub- 
ject are, Job, xiv. 4, (who can find a pure man? 
none is unspotted,) Rom. iii. 23, where Paul 
says, in order to humble the pride of the Jews, 
that they were no better than the heathen, and 
were, as well as they, votspovvtss r^ Sdfjy^ ®sov' 
also Rom. v. 12 — 21; Eph. ii. 3; John, iii. 6. 
No sooner does man begin to exercise his rea- 
son, and to distinguish between good and evil, 
than this bias to sin shews itself in him. While 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



285 



he must acknowledge the law as good and obli- 
gatory, he feels within himself a resistance to 
it — an inclination to-do that which is opposed 
to it, and forbidden by it. Indeed, he is borne 
away with such power by his lower appetites 
and passions, that he often does that which he 
himself knows to be injurious, and neglects that 
which he knows to be salutary. Rom. vii. 8; 
Eph. ii, 3; Gal. v. 17. Thus it is with all 
men ; and each individual must confess that the 
Bible truly describes his own history and ex- 
perience. Hence this evil is universal. 

The universality of this corruption implies, 
(b) that it can never be entirely eradicated, even 
with the most sincere endeavours of the pious ; 
that although, through divine assistance, an end 
may be put to the dominion of sin, and its out- 
breakings may be prevented, yet the root and 
germ of evil will remain, and cease only with 
death, or the laying aside of the body, in which 
this sinful corruption has its principal seat. 
Vide Rom. vi. 12 ; vii. 17, 24 ; Gal. v. 16, 17 ; 
1 John, i. 8. Every one, therefore, who has 
been freed from the dominion of sin, has still to 
contend against this propensity to sin, lest he 
should again fall under its dominion. Rom. 
viii. 13;. vi. 12, seq. These remnants of de- 
pravity which are found even in the best men, 
make their holiness and virtue very imperfect; 
and the feeling that they are sinners continually 
humbles them before God. The truly pious 
man will never therefore glory in his holiness, 
or be proud of his virtue, because he well knows 
that it is imperfect. This is evident from every 
page of the scriptures. 

(2) It is natural and innate, (naturalis et 
congenita sive insita vitiositas sive depravatio.) 
The term natural is taken from Eph- ii. 3, tpvast, 
fexva opyjjj. Vide s. 77, III. 1. Tertullian 
seems to be the first among the church fathers 
who used the term naturalis. Vide s. 79, No. 
4. The use of this term, if it be rightly ex- 
plained, is unobjectionable. If natural be un- 
derstood in the sense of essential, it conveys a 
false idea, and is the same as to say, that this 
depravity is an essential part of man, that man 
could not exist as man without it. Matt. Fla- 
cius of Jena, in the sixteenth century, contended, 
in his controversies with Victor Strigelius about 
Synergism, that peccaium originale esse non acci- 
dens, sed ipsam substantiam hominis. But he 
asserted this merely from ignorance of scholas- 
tic phraseology. He meant only to maintain 
the entire corruption of man, and his incapacity 
to all good. And although the authors of the 
Formula of Concord (Art. I.) nominally oppose 
Flacianism, they maintain the same doctrine in 
other words: peccatum originale cum natura et 
substantia hominis intime conjunctum esse et com- 
mixium. 

The term natural is rather used in this doc- 



trine in opposition to what is acquired, or first 
produced and occasioned by external circum- 
stances and causes. It denotes that for which 
there is a foundation in man himself, although 
it may be an accident, and may not belong es- 
sentially to his nature. In the same sense we 
say, for example, that such a man possesses na- 
tural sagacity, that a disease is natural to an- 
other, that he is by nature a poet, &c, because 
the qualities here spoken of are not the result of 
diligence, practice, or any external circum- 
stances. In the same way this depravity is 
called natural, because it has its ground in man, 
and is not in the first place acquired ; or, still 
more plainly, because it does not first come to 
man from without, through instruction or the 
mere imitation of bad examples. 

As the term natural, however, is ambiguous, 
and liable to misconception, some prefer the 
designation innate, (congenitum or insitum) — a 
term which, as well as the other, is scriptural. 
The word congenitus is used -by the elder Pliny 
in the sense of innate, and as opposed acquisito 
sive aliunde illato, and is in substance the same 
as natural. So Cicero (Orat. pro domo, c. 5,) 
places nativum malum in opposition to that 
which is aliunde allato. And it is with justice 
that a quality, which has its origin at the same 
time with man, which is found in him from his 
earliest youth, and can be wholly eradicated by 
no effort, is denominated natural, (jt?ap, applied 
to the good, Job, xxxi. 18; to the wicked, Ps. 
lviii. 4, denoting anything which is deep-rooted, 
and shews itself early in men.) In this sense 
we speak at the present day of innate or heredi- 
tary faults, virtues, excellences, both in men 
and beasts — e. g., of cunning, pride, magnani- 
mity, &c. So Kant speaks of radikale Base; 
and Sosipater, according to the testimony of 
Stobseus, wrote in one of his letters, evvosl 8e, 
ws ovfityvtov to a^aptdvuv cw^piortotj. 

(3) It is hereditary. That this evil is trans- 
mitted from parents to children follows partly 
from its universality, and partly from its entire 
sameness in all men. As it was in the parents, 
so it is in the children, although it shews itself 
in different degrees, according to the difference 
in the organization, the temperament, and the 
external circumstances and relations in which 
they live. In the same way we judge that cer- 
tain faults, talents, and virtues, are inherited by 
children, when we see a resemblance between 
them and their parents in these respects. The 
doctrine that this depravity is propagated among 
men from parents to children, and on this very 
account is universal, is clearly taught in the 
holy scriptures, as Rom. v. 12, seq.; John, iii. 
6, and other texts. Vide s. 77, III. 2. 

Note. — Human depravity does not, however, 
consist in definite inclinations directed to parti- 
cular objects, but rather in a general disposition 



286 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to inordinate and violent passions, which shews 
itself now with regard to one object, and again 
with regard to another, according to the differ- 
ence of organization, of temperament, and of 
external circumstances ; but in all cases, what- 
ever may be the object of the passion, in such a 
way that reason and conscience avail but little 
against passion, or far less than they should. 

II. The manner in which Natural Depravity is 
propagated. 

(1) From what has been already said, it is 
plain that a physical propagation of human de- 
pravity is affirmed in the scriptures, and it is in 
this that what theologians call original sin 
(Erbsiinde) principally consists. This may be 
proved from the following principles, which are 
undeniably taught in the Bible: (a) that human 
nature was unquestionably more perfect and 
better formerly than it is at present; (6) that 
our progenitors were corrupted, and as it were 
poisoned, by the fall; (c) that the principal seat 
of this depravity is to be found in the body, s. 
77, II. Children derive their bodies from their 
parents, and so back to the first human pair. 
The attributes which belonged to the bodies of 
our first parents after the fall, their excellences 
as well as imperfections, belong also to their 
posterity, and so are inherited by children from 
their parents. Parents could not beget children 
better or more perfect than they themselves 
were. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49. After the fall 
they had adpxa, or tfw^a d/mpr'Jaj and ^avdtov, 
and consequently their posterity, begotten and 
born after the fall, possessed the same. John, 
iii. 6, to ysysvvqvsvov ex tfapxoj cap! (crapxtxoj) 

This is illustrated from the analogy of certain 
diseases of mind and body, which are often pro- 
pagated through whole generations. It is a 
matter of experience, that some qualities, intel- 
lectual and corporeal, are propagated from pa- 
rents to their offspring, although it is not the 
case with all. The propagation of moral de- 
pravity is not, therefore, contrary to what is 
known from experience, but rather in perfect 
consistency with it, and this is enough. 

Closely connected with this is the New-Tes- 
tament doctrine, that the man Jesus Christ was 
not produced in the common course of nature, 
like other men, but in an extraordinary manner, 
by the immediate agency of God. Luke, i. 34 ; 
Matt. i. 16 — 20, 25. It was necessary for him 
to be without sin or depravity, (Heb. iv. 15,) 
vitiositatis expers, and like the first man in his 
state of innocence, in order to restore the happi- 
ness which was squandered by him; hence he 
is called b Sivtspog dv^pioHog, b tG%a-to$ 'A8df.t, 1 
Cor. xv. 45, 47; also, o ribs xov d^pwrto-u, the 
great Son of Adam, or of man. 

It was an this account that, in the twelfth 



century, some teachers in France, and Ansel- 
mus of Canterbury, in England, maintained the 
unspotted conception of the mother of Jesus. To 
this opinion Scotus acceded, and after him his 
adherents, the entire body of the Franciscans, 
and, at a later period, the Jesuits. But they 
were opposed by Thomas Aquinas and his fol- 
lowers, and by all the Dominicans. On this 
point there was a violent dispute in the Romisb 
church from the fifteenth to the seventeenth cen- 
turies, and the popes decided nothing respecting 
it. This doctrine is wholly unsupported by the 
holy scriptures. 

When all which has now been said is taken 
in connexion, it plainly appears that the doctrine 
of the physical propagation of depravity fully 
agrees with the other scriptural ideas. Any one, 
therefore, who receives these representations re- 
specting the original and more perfect state of 
man, respecting the sin and fall of Adam, &c, 
as true, and founded in the scriptures, proceeds 
inconsistently when he denies the consequences 
which flow from them, as many modern theolo- 
gians do. 

In the times of the church fathers, during the 
third and fourth centuries, this doctrine of the 
physical propagation of human corruption was 
often vindicated and illustrated by the doctrine 
respecting the propagation of the soul per tra- 
ducem; (vide s. 57, II., and s. 79, No. 2 ;) but of 
this there is nothing said in the Biole. The 
manner in which this disposition is propagated 
can be explained neither psychologically nor ana- 
tomically. The psychologist does not know the 
soul as it is in itself, but only a part of its exer- 
cises. In like manner the interior of our corpo- 
real structure is a mystery impenetrable by our 
senses. Into the inmost secrets of nature, whe- 
ther corporeal or spiritual, no created spirit can 
pry. We cannot therefore either understand or 
describe this disposition, which is so injurious to 
morality, or its propagation, as they are in them- 
selves, but only according to the appearances 
and effects which they exhibit in the gradual 
development of man. 

Note. — The universality of depravity (d/tap- 
-tla) and of death (Sava-tog) depends, according 
to the Bible, upon the derivation of all men from 
one progenitor or father. Hence sin and death 
are always derived from Adam, Rom. v. 14; 1 
Cor. xv. 22; and not from Eve, although she, 
according to Paul himself, (1 Tim. ii. 14,) first 
sinned. If Eve only had sinned, she would have 
removed her depravity from the world when she 
died ; and sin would not through her have come 
into the world in such a way that sin, and death 
through sin, should pass upon all men. Hence 
Jesus, when it was necessary that he, as a man, 
should be without sin, was born of a human mo- 
ther, but not begotten by a human father. Vide 
Num. I. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



2S7 



(2) There is also a moral propagation of this 
depravity. In this are included, 

(a) The imputation of the sin of Adam, of 
which we have treated, both doctrinally and his- 
torically, in s. 76. By this is understood the 
universal mortality of man as a consequence of 
the sin of our progenitors. 

(b) The propagation of depravity through the 
imitation of bad examples. The bias to evil 
which lies in the human heart is in no way more 
excited and strengthened than by bad examples, 
which very soon obtain approbation and are imi- 
tated, whether the individual may have seen 
them himself, or have heard of them from others, 
or have read respecting them in books. The 
influence exerted by this cause upon man in the 
formation of his character is so indescribably 
great, that many ancient writers regarded it as 
the only cause of the propagation of human de- 
pravity, and either wholly denied or, at least in 
a great measure, doubted the doctrine of its phy- 
sical propagation. They hence supposed that 
this evil could be either wholly removed, or at 
least much diminished, by means of a good edu- 
cation, and that the propensity to imitation could 
receive such a direction that the good only should 
be imitated, while the evil should be shunned. 
So thought Pelagius, (vide s. 79, No. 3,) and at 
a later period the Socinians and many Arminians. 
This opinion has found advocates also among 
some modern protestant theologians — e. g., 
Steinbart, System, s. 105, f . ; Eberhard, Apolo- 
gie, ii. 339, f. ; Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. 
b. ii. s. 683, f. 

That example and education contribute much 
to the moral "'mprovement or corruption of man 
cannot be doubted; but it is equally true, and 
conformed to experience, that example and edu- 
cation are far from being the only and sufficient 
cause of the prevailing wickedness, and that 
with the best education man becomes bad much 
easier than good, with all the pains taken to 
make him so. Of this the cause lies in the 
undue predominance of the animal appetites. 
This accounts for it, that the bias to evil is so 
much stronger and more active than the bias to 
good. Were it otherwise, it would be unneces- 
sary to contend so strenuously against evil, and 
to employ so many means to incite man to good- 
ness and to secure him against vice. And among 
all the thousands who have lived upon the earth, 
there would have been found some examples of 
persons who had passed through their whole life 
free from sin. 

As man, therefore, has within himself a natural 
adaptation to much which is good, he has also a 
natural disposition and bias to much which is 
evil, (malum radicalc,) which soon strikes root, 
spreads round, and chokes the good. It is abso- 
lutely inexplicable how the preponderance of 
sense over reason, so visible in all men, could be 



derived from mere imitation. Were this the 
case, this preponderance ought to cease as soon 
as man, in the full exercise of his understanding, 
were taught better. The will, we should expect, 
would then obey the dictates of reason. It is not 
found, however, to be so in fact. The dominion 
of sense still continues, as the experience of 
every one proves. The ground of this mustthere- 
fore lie deeper ; and both experience and reason 
confirm the account which scripture gives of it. 
Vide s. 77. 

III. The Imputation or Punishableness of Natural 
Depravity. 

This is the reatas or culpa vitiontatis, and was 
asserted by Augustine and his followers. Vide 
Moms, p. 120, s. 7, coll. s. 79, No. 2. They 
contended that all men, even before they had 
committed any sinful actions, and barely on ac- 
count of this native depravity, were deserving of 
temporal and eternal death, or of damnation. 
Others have endeavoured in various ways to 
mitigate the severity of this opinion. Some mo- 
dern theologians have taught, in imitation of 
Augustine, the doctrine that peccatum originale 
per se esse damnabile ; but that, for Christ's sake, 
punishment was not actually inflicted. 

But the assertion, that this corruption in and 
of itself involves condemnation, cannot be 
proved. For (a) it is irreconcilable with the 
justice and goodness of God that he should 
punish (in the proper sense of this term) an in- 
nocent person for the sins of another. Sin 
cannot exist, certainly cannot be punished, un- 
less the action is free ; otherwise it ceases to be 
sin. Vide s. 76, III. (b) In those texts of 
the Old and New Testament which are com- 
monly cited in behalf of this opinion, the death 
spoken of is not eternal death, or condemnation ; 
but temporal death, Gen. i. 2, 17; Rom. v. 12; 
1 Cor. xv. 22. Vide s. 75, II. 2. (c) Even 
bodily death is represented in the scriptures as, 
indeed, the consequence of Adam's sin, but not as 
a punishment, strictly speaking, for any beside 
himself; for none but himself were guilty of his 
sin. 

In conformity with this view, Rom. v. 12, 14, 
is to be explained; also Rom. vi. 23, $dvato$ 
6^>u>vux afxaptlas, or ver. 21, t£ho$ (xaprtbs) a ( itap- 
t'taj' so called because it followed upon Adam's 
sin, and, as far as he was concerned, was a pu- 
nishment for it. Vide s. 76, III. The doctrine 
of the Bible on this subject is the following: 
"The bias of man to evil, and to do that which 
is forbidden, is in itself bad, (Germ, fehlerhaftez, 
esse in vitio, viiiosum,) Rom. vii. 5 ; xiii. 18 ; but 
it cannot be imputed to man, or he be regarded 
as punishable on account of it, unless he yields 
himself to it, and indulges it. Vide Rom. vi. 
12; Gen. iv. 7, coll. James, i. 15. This, how- 
ever, is the ease with all men; no one has 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



lived upon the earth who has riot been led by 
this propensity into actual transgression, and 
so has become deserving of punishment." 
Truly, therefore, does the scripture affirm that 
we are all subject to punishment, (tixva opy^j, 
Ephes. ii. 3 ;) not, however, because we are 
born with this disposition, (for this is not any 
fault of ours,) but because we indulge it, give 
an ear to our unlawful desires, and so suffer our- 
selves to be led on to the commission of sin. 

IV. The Source and Origin of Sinful Inclinations, 
and their Punishableness. 
From the preponderance of sense now ex- 
plained, particular sinful dispositions and pas- 
sions take their origin, and so are the result 
and the proof of the sinful depravity of man. 
But in order that we may rightly estimate the 
sinfulness and punishableness of these desires, 
we must attend to the following considera- 
tions : — 

(1) The desires of man are not in themselves, 
and abstractedly considered, sinful ,• for they are 
deep laid in the constitution which God him- 
self has given to human nature ; they arise in 
man involuntarily, and so far cannot certainly 
be imputed to him. The essential constitution 
of man makes it necessary that everything 
which makes an agreeable impression on the 
senses should inevitably awaken correspondent 
desires. The poor man, who sees himself sur- 
rounded with the treasures of another, feels a 
natural and involuntary desire to possess them. 
The mere rising of this desire is no more pu- 
nishable in him than it was in Eve, -when she 
saw the tree, and felt an impulse to eat its beau- 
tiful fruit, which is never represented in the 
Bible as her sin. 

(2) The desires of man become sinful and 
deserving of punishment then only when (a) 
man, feeling desires after forbidden things, seeks 
and finds pleasure in them, and delights himself 
in them, and so (&) carefully cherishes and nou- 
rishes them in his heart, (c) When he seeks 
occasions to awaken the desires after forbidden 
things, and to entertain himself with them. 
(d) When he gives audience and approbation to 
these desires, and justifies, seeks, and performs 
the sins to which he is inclined. This is fol- 
lowed by the twofold injury, that he not only 
sins for this once, but that he gives his appetites 
and passions the power of soliciting him a se- 
cond time more importunately, of becoming more 
vehement and irresistible, so that he becomes 
continually more disposed to sin, acquires a fixed 
habit of sinning, and at last becomes the slave 
of sin. Vide Michaelis, Ueber die Sunde, s. 
365, f. But if a man repels and suppresses the 
involuntary desire arising within him because it 
is evil, he cannot certainly be punished merely 
because, without any fault of his own, he felt this 



desire. It were unjust to punish any one for be- 
ing assailed by an enemy, without any provoca 
tion on his part. 

(3) With this doctrine the holy scripture is 
perfectly accordant. Even in his state of inno- 
cence man felt the rising of desire ; nor was this 
in him accounted sin; Gen. iii. 6. Hence we 
are never required, either in the Old Testament 
or the New, to eradicate these desires, (which, 
indeed, is a thing impossible, and would cause 
a destruction of human nature itself,) but only 
to keep them under control, and to suppress 
those which fix upon forbidden things. Vide s. 
77. In Rom. vi. 12, we are directed not to let 
our sinful appetites rule, and not to obey the body 
in the lusts thereof; here, therefore, it is presup- 
posed that these tempting lusts remain. Again, 
in Gal. v. 24, we are charged to crucify the flesh, 
with its affections and lusts. It is to those who 
contend against their wicked passions that re- 
wards are promised, and not to those who have 
never had these solicitations and allurements 
to evil. The pretended virtue of such men 
scarcely deserves the name, and is not capable 
of reward. 

Some texts are indeed cited in which the pas- 
sions, in themselves considered, are forbidden, 
as Rom. vii. 7, ovx tTtC^vy.rpzif Ex. xx. 17, 
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," 
&c. Some also in which they are said to be 
deserving of punishment from God, as Matt. v. 
28. But in these texts, such desires are not 
spoken of as arise involuntarily within us, and 
for which we are not therefore culpable, but 
such as man himself nourishes and entertains, 
or by his own agency awakens within himself, 
and which he aims to execute. And so in 
Matt. v. Christ speaks of the actual intention 
and design of man to commit adultery, if he 
could ; and not of the passion arising in his 
heart, which he himself disapproves, and imme- 
diately suppresses, because it is contrary to the 
divine law. 

(4) The manner in which man is borne away 
by his passions to the commission of sin is de- 
scribed by James (i. 14, 15) in a way that cor- 
responds with the experience of every one; and 
this text confirms all the preceding remarks. 
When desires arise within us, we are in danger 
of sinning. Some present enjoyment of sense 
tempts us. Enticements to sin spring up. These 
James calls temptations, (elsewhere called axdv- 
8a"ka, Matt, xviii. 7, 8, Sfebp, Ezek. xvii. 19.) 
For we look upon that w-hich is represented to 
us by our senses as charming and desirable, to 
be a great good, the possession of which w r ould 
make us happy. This is expressed by s&Xxo- 
/x£vos and SfXsa^ufvoj. The image is here taken 
from animals, which are ensnared by baits (Ss- 
teap) laid before them, in order to take them. To 
these allurements all men are exposed, although 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



289 



not in the same degree. Thus far there is no 
sin — i. e., the man is not yet caught in the snare 
under which the bait lies. But here he must 
stop, and instead of indulging must suppress 
these desires — must fly from the bait. Other- 
wise, lust conceives, (Jeiti^v^la ovVka^ovaa,') i. e., 
these desires and passions are approved in the 
heart, and the man begins to think he can satisfy 
them. This is wrong and sinful. For this is 
no longer involuntary, but, on the contrary, the 
result of man's own will, and he is now deserv- 
ing of punishment. This is what is called pec- 
catum actuale internum. But finally, desire 
brings forth sin, the evil intent passes into ac- 
tion, and is accomplished. This is peccatum 
actuale externum. Hence flows $dvatos, misery, 
unhappiness of every sort, as the consequence 
and punishment of sin. 

SECTION LXX1X. 

OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ANCIENT 
CHURCH-FATHERS RESPECTING HUMAN DEPRA- 
VITY ; AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EC- 
CLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY ON THIS SUBJECT 
AND THE VARIOUS FORMS OF DOCTRINE WFRE 
GRADUALLY DEVELOPED. 

(1) The oldest Christian teachers were mostly 
agreed in considering death as a consequence 
of Adam's sin. Vide s. 76. [It should be ob- 
served, however, that in these early writers the 
term $£opa stands not only for mortality, but 
also for depravity. Vide Neander, b. i. Abth. 
iii. s. 1045. — Tr.] But we shall look in vain 
through the writings of most of the Greek teach- 
ers to find the full scriptural idea of an innate 
depravity ,• or, at least, it cannot be found exhi- 
bited with sufficient distinctness or clearness. 
As there had been as yet no controversy on this 
subject, nothing respecting it was determined 
and settled on ecclesiastical authority. Still 
they agree, for the most part, that the dispro- 
portion between sense and reason, or the corrup- 
tion of human nature, began after the fall of 
Adam, and has been diffused as a universal dis- 
ease through the whole human race. That this 
evil, however, in itself considered, is to be re- 
garded as actual sin, and as such is punished 
by God, they do not teach ; but rather the con- 
trary. So Justin Martyr, Ap. i. 54, seq. ; Ire- 
naeus, Adv. Haeres. iv. 37, seq. ; Athenagoras, 
Legat. c. 22 ; Clemens Alex. Strom, iii. (contra 
Encratitas.) "No one," says the writer last 
mentioned, "is wholly free from sin; but the 
child, who has never personally trespassed, 
cannot be subjected to the curse of Adam, (the 
punishment of his sin.) Yet all who have the 
use of their reason are led by this their moral 
depravity to commit actual sin, and so become 
liable to punishment." The same writer says, 
in his Paedag. iii. 12, p.6vo$ (W^api^foj 6 7.6yo$' 
37 



to yap i^a/xaptdvscv 7to,aiv tjxtyvtov xai xoivov. 
Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on 
Isaiah, says, tyvoixbv iv av^piLrCo^ ovx dvai xaxbv 
and in his work "Contra Anthropomorph." c. 
8, he says, " Adam's posterity are not punished 
as those who with him had broken the law of 
God." So also Origen, Prsef. ad libros xtpi 
dp%uv, and his followers, Basilius, and Thee- 
dorus of Mopsevestia, who, according to the 
testimony of Photius, wrote a book against those 
who taught that man sinned tyvoei, xai ov yvio[i<y. 
There were some, too, of the Greek fathers who 
traced the origin of the evil passions and of the 
actual sins arising from them to the mortality 
of the body- — e. g., Chrysostom and Theodoret. 
This hypothesis has been revived in later times 
by Whitby, who has attempted to carry it 
through. Vide s. 76, note. 

(2) The same representation is found in many 
of the fathers of the ancient Latin church, even 
in Africa. They taught that death (depravity !) 
is a consequence of Adam's sin, and yet that it 
is not, in itself, to be regarded as sin, and pu- 
nished accordingly. Cyprian (Epist. Synod. 
Cone. Carthag. iii.) says, "A new-born child 
has not itself sinned, nisi quod secundum Adam 
carnaliter natus, contagium mortis contraxit." 
In baptism, the sins of the child (which were 
still not propria but aliend) were supposed to 
be washed away. Ambrosius says, on Ps. 
xlviii., "There is a bias to sin in all, but 
this is not actual sin, and liability to punish- 
ment ; God punishes us only for nostra peccata, 
and not for alienae (Jtdami) ncquiti&jlagitia." 
Even according to Tertullian, (detestim. animae, 
c. 3,) it is only to temporal death that we are 
condemned in consequence of the sin of Adam. 
To this opinion, Hilarius and others acceded. 
The African fathers before the time of Augus- 
tine, and even Tertullian, seem, however, to 
have had less distinct and settled views on this 
subject than even the Greeks, which arose from 
their misunderstanding the seemingly obscure 
phraseology^ of the New Testament, and espe- 
cially of the Latin version of it. 

[The germs of the controversy which after- 
wards broke out between Augustine and Pela- 
gius can be discerned in this earlier period. 
The Alexandrine teachers, and among these 
principally Clement and Origen, took the side 
of the human will, and its ability to good. They, 
however, by no means carried this so far as was 
afterwards done by Pelagius, and often express- 
ed themselves strongly respecting the entire de- 
pravity of man, and his dependence on the reno- 
vating influence of divine grace. V ide C lement, 
Quis dives salv. c. 21. The Eastern teachers 
were led to vindicate thus strongly the powers 
of the human will by their opposition to New 
Platonism, and the Manichean iheosophy, by 
which sin was attributed either to an eternal 
2B 



290 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



principle of evil, to a blind and resistless des- 
tiny, or to some necessity of nature, rather than 
to the perversion of our own moral powers. 

The teachers of the Western church, on the 
other hand, and especially those of Africa, having 
no such philosophy to oppose, recognised more 
fully the peculiar Christian truths of the corrup- 
tion and inability of human nature, and the ne- 
cessity of divine grace ; but they also were far 
from representing the grace of God as compul- 
sory and irresistible, as it was afterwards done 
in the Pelagian controversies. This tendency 
in the Western church is represented by Tertul- 
lian, Cyprian, Hilary, and Ambrosius. 

As yet, however, these opposing tendencies 
had not come into open conflict, but awaited the 
causes which brought them into direct collision 
in the following period. — Tr.] 

But Augustine carried the matter much fur- 
ther. He affirmed the doctrine de imputaiione 
peccati Jldami in the strictest juridical sense, 
teaching at the same time the entire depravity 
of man, and his total inability to all good, in 
such a sense as it is nowhere taught in the Bible. 
He may have been led to this by having for- 
merly belonged to the sect of Manicheans, who 
hold very strict sentiments on this point; hence 
his doctrine depeccato originali was called by 
Pelagius and Julian a Manichean doctrine.* 
He maintained that the consequence of Adam's 
sin was not merely bodily death, but eternal, 
(mors secunda, cujus non est finis ,•) and that to 
this all men, even children, who had not them- 
selves thought or done either good or evil, were 
subjected ; though yet the unmerited grace of 
God delivered some from this punishment, (de- 
cretum dbsolutum.') He exhibits these doctrines 
in his work, De civitate Dei, xiv. 1, and else- 



* [We subjoin the following remarks of Neander 
with respect to the charge here, and often elsewhere, 
brought against the system of Augustine. "The 
anthropology of Augustine," he says, " is unjustly 
supposed to be derived from the influence of Mani- 
cheism. His doctrine respecting the m$ral depravity 
of man was a very different thing from the dualism 
of Mani, which was derived from the philosophy of 
nature. The system of Augustine did not, like that 
of Mani, proceed from his confounding in his con- 
ceptions the natural and the moral, but from a pure 
fact of moral consciousness. On the contrary, it 
may be said, that while the hope of finding out, by 
means of speculation, an explanation of the irrecon- 
cilable opposition between good and evil, of which 
he had become early conscious in the depth of his 
soul, led him to Manicheism ; he was led from it 
again by coming to apprehend this opposition more 
and more in a moral light. Again ; it was in direct 
opposition to Manicheism that he adopted the theory, 
the first germs of which he took from Platonism, that 
evil is only a subjective deviation of created being 
from the law of the supreme and only true Being, 
and not, as taught by Mani, an independent, self-sub- 
sisting existence." Allg. Kirchengesch, b. ii. Abth. 
iii. s. 1206.— Tr.] 



where. Fulgentius Rusp. (De Fide, c. 29) 
asserts that children who had lived merely in 
their mother's womb, and yet died without bap- 
tism, must suffer eternal punishment in hell. 
And so taught many of the schoolmen, according 
to Peter of Lombardy, 1. ii. Even Augustine 
attributed a certain kind of physical influence 
to baptism, and confined the grace of God to 
those to whom this ordinance was administered. 
He held this doctrine, however, in common with 
many of the Latin fathers before his time — e. g., 
Cyprian. The adherents of Augustine were ac- 
customed to vindicate their views by the doc- 
trine of the propagation of the soulper traducem, 
though this is not true of all of them. On the 
contrary, the adherents of Pelagius. for the most 
part, denied this doctrine, and were creationists. 
Vide s. 57, II. 

(3) This severe doctrine of Augustine was 
controverted by Pelagius, and many others who 
followed him. But Pelagius, in his turn, went 
too far on the other side, and maintained various 
principles which obviously are unscriptural. 
Here were, therefore, two extremes, between 
which scriptural truth lay in the midst, having 
both reason and experience on its side. In the 
system of Augustine, on the one hand, there 
is much opposed to reason and scripture ; and 
in that of Pelagius, on the other hand, there is 
much opposed to scripture and experience. Pela- 
gius not only denied the imputation of Adam's 
sin, but also the physical propagation of human 
depravity. He taught that the moral nature of 
man is unaltered, and that man is now entirely 
in the same state in which Adam was created. 
Weakness, imperfection, and death, were, in 
his view, essential to man from the first, and he 
is punis-hed only for sinful actions. The pro- 
pagation of human depravity is not physically 
and by birth, but morally only, from the imitation 
of bad examples. The declaration that in Adam 
all have sinned, does not relate, according to his 
scheme, to any peccatum nascendi origine contrac- 
tum; but to that acquired propter imitationem ex- 
empli. Vide in Libro de Natura, ap. August, ad 
Rom. v. And Julian said, (ap. August, contra 
Jul. ii. 54.) peccatum primum moribus, non se- 
minibus ad posteros fuisse devectum. Adam set 
a bad example before his children, and they 
again before theirs, and so on. In this sense 
only did Pelagius allow of a propagation of sin 
from Adam. Vide s. 78, II. 2. The views of 
Pelagius are very clearly exhibited in the work 
De libero arbitrio (ap. August, de pecc. orig. c. 
13) : Omne bonum aut malum, quo vel laudibiles 
vel vituperabiles sumus, non nobiscum nascitur, 
sed agitur a nobis; capaces utriusque rei, non 
pleni nascimur, ct ut sine virtute, sic sine vitio 
procreamur. 

These views were totally diverse from those 
of Augustine and other African teachers, and in 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



291 



many points also from the plain doctrine of the 
Bible. This deviation from the scriptures Au- 
gustine perceived and opposed. Through the 
resistance of Pelagius he became more zealous 
and heated, and in his polemical zeal advanced 
continually greater lengths in his positions.* 
The theory of Augustine, or the African theory, 
was, however, by no means universal in the 
fourth century. In the East, and in Palestine 
especially, Pelagius was received into favour 
and protection with many who had agreed in 
many points with Origen, and who therefore 
saw little reprehensible in Pelagius. Much, 
indeed, in his theory differed from that then pre- 
vailing through the Eastern church. But from 
the indifference of so many Grecian bishops on 
this subject, it is obvious that nothing can have 
been at that time ecclesiastically determined re- 
specting it, and that the importance of the ques- 
tion by no means appeared to them at first. 
And even in the Western church out of Africa, 
there were many who looked upon the Pelagian 
theory not unfavourably, and on this account it 
was at first acquitted of the charges brought 
against it even by Zosimus, the Roman bishop. 
Through the efforts of the Africans, however, 
and their connexion with the Anti-Origenistic 
party, it was finally brought about that the doc- 
trines of Pelagius were formerly condemned as 
heretical at the church councils, and that the 
theory of Augustine, after the year 418, became 
predominant, at least in the Occidental church. 
Various attempts were made to unite the two 
parties, and many took a middle course between 
them, from whence originated, at a later period, 
the so-called Semi-Pelagian party. Scotus, and 
his followers among the schoolmen, very much 
extenuated the natural depravity of man; in 
which they have been followed by many of the 
theologians of the Romish church — e. g., the 

* [This remark respecting the theory of Augus- 
tine, though often made, may be shewn demonstra- 
bly to be incorrect. Augustine had developed his 
full system concerning the inability of man and the 
doctrine of predestination resulting from it, as early 
as the year 397, in a work directed to Simplician, 
bishop at Mailand, some time before Pelagius ap- 
peared at Rome, and at least ten years before his 
doctrines had excited attention and controversy. 
Neander says, — « Opposition to Pelagianism could 
have had no influence upon Augustine in forming 
his system. It may rather be said, with more truth, 
that Pelagius was excited and induced to develop his 
own views, by opposition to the principles of Augus- 
tine respecting the natural depravity of man, and 
grace and predestination not conditioned by the free 
will," b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1215. We ought not readily 
to attribute the opinions of such minds as Augus- 
tine's to external causes. Their own internal im- 
pulse, and their effort after perfect consistency, often 
carry them to extremes, to which others could be 
driven only by the pressure of controversy. Cf. the 
Note to the History of Decrees, vol. i. s. 32, p. 252, 
Fourthly.— -Ta.] 



Jesuits, who have been on this account often 
accused of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. 
Among the followers of Augustine, many ad- 
hered to his opinion, that even mere original 
sin, in itself considered, is punished with eter- 
nal death, even in the case of children who die 
before baptism, though they themselves have 
never done any evil — e. g., Gregor. M. 1. ix. 
Moral, c. 16. Others, to whom this doctrine 
seemed too severe, held only, that in conse- 
quence of original sin man is excluded from the 
full joys of the blessed in heaven, but not mere- 
ly on that account cast into the pains of hell ; in 
short, that he is placed in a middle state, in 
which he is neither damned nor yet perfectly 
happy. So Damasus : Poena originalis peccati 
est carentia visionis Dei. The same representa- 
tion respecting children who die before baptism 
is found also among some Greek writers — e. g., 
in Gregory of Nazianzen, who says respecting 
them, (Orat. 40,) [xrjts Sofjacr^vat, pjtft xo"kaa- 
^tffff^-at, x. t 1 . %. 

(4) Some additional historical illustrations of 
the Augustinian and African theory respecting 
natural depravity and respecting the term, pecca- 

TUM ORIGINIS sive ORIGINALE. 

The depravity of human nature being, accord- 
ing to the Bible, propagated from Adam, and 
communicated in the way of ordinary generation 
to children, it was very natural to denominate it 
original; and since, moreover, it is common to 
all men, and, though not essential to human na- 
ture, yet properly belonging to it in its present 
state, it is called natural, especially as the term 
tyvfoi is used in Ephes. ii. 3. Vide s. 78, I. 2. 
Both of these terms are found in the same pas- 
sage in Tertullian, (De Anima, c. 41,) where 
he calls depravity malum animas ex originis 
vitio and naturale quodammodo. Upon this pas- 
sage it is important to observe, that he does not 
use the term peccatum, but malum and vitium ; 
and again, that this is the first passage in the 
Latin Fathers in which the term naturale is ap- 
plied to this subject. But because the Latin 
word naturale is ambiguous, and might be un- 
derstood in the sense of essentiale, (a sense in 
which Tertullian would not use it, and in which 
even Cyril of Alexandria rejected the expres- 
sion ^oitftjcoz/ xaxov, vide No. I.,) Tertullian adds 
quodammodo. The term naturale, as used by 
him, properly means nothing more than pro- 
prium, adhaerens, non aliunde contr actum. Vide 
s. 78, 1. 2. Ambrosius, too, says, (Apol. David, 
c. 11,) Antequam nascimur, maculamur conta- 
gio, et ante usuram lucis originis ipsius excipi- 
mus injuriam. Thus none of these fathers use 
the term peccatum, or pretend that natural de- 
pravity in the abstract, or in itself, is imputed to 
man as sin, or punished. Augustine is the very 
first who uses the term peccatum originale 
quia vriginaliter traditur, as indeed he himself 



292 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



says in "Opus imperf. contra Julianum," ii. 
After this time, this terra, which perhaps may 
have been used by some Africans before Augus- 
tine, was repeated by some Latin teachers — e. g., 
by Hieronymus, on Psalm 1., and was finally 
authorized by councils, and adopted into the 
terminology of the Western church. It was 
first publicly employed in the Acts (c. 2) of the 
Milevitanic council, in the year 416; and those 
who deny the doctrine de peccato originally and 
its punishment, which is removed by baptism, 
were there denounced with an anathema. 

But how came it to pass that the word pecca- 
tum should be employed to designate natural 
depravity, since this depravity, in abstracto, and 
by itself, is to be regarded as a disease or a sickly 
moral disorder of man, and not as action; and 
since man had no guilty agency in bringing it 
upon himself? It came in this way: in Rom. 
vii. 9, and elsewhere, Paul uses the term a^ap- 
Tfla in reference to the bias to sin found in all 
men, or the disposition to do what is forbidden 
by the divine law; and this is perfectly con- 
formed to the usus loquendi. For the Greek 
apaptut, is employed not only with regard to 
sinful actions, but any fault or defective state or 
nature of a thing; like the Latin peccatum and 
peccare. Vide s. 73, II. In this sense, then, 
they might justly say peccatum originis, instead 
of vitium, meaning simply defect, fault, evil. 
Tertullian, however, did not use the word pecca- 
tum, probably on account of this ambiguity. 
But when Augustine found the term peccatum 
used in the Latin Bible in reference to this 
natural bias to sin, he supposed that he might, 
and indeed ought, to employ the same. But not 
distinguishing sufficiently between the different 
meanings of this word, he contended, that all 
that must be true respecting this state, in itself 
considered, which is true respecting sinful ac- 
tions, on the ground that the same word is used 
respecting both in the Bible. He then argued 
in this way; "All sin is punished, or it brings 
men into a state of condemnation before God, 
and consequently this natural depravity itself 
because it is included under afjtaptfla, and is 
called peccatum." Thus arose the scheme of 
Augustine described in No. 2, although in this 
he was not throughout consistent with himself. 
Instead of employing this phraseology, it would 
have been better for him to have said, The ten- 
dency to sin is indeed an evil, a moral disorder — 
i. e., a wrong and defective constitution of our 
nature in a moral respect, from which particular 
actual sins result ; it cannot, therefore, be other- 
wise than displeasing to a perfectly holy God ; 
nor can he, as the scriptures expressly teach, 
be its author; but neither would God punish 
men for this, in and of itself. F 'or punishment 
is first inflicted when man suffers himself to be 
enticed to actual sin, or transgression of the 



law ; and because none remain unperverted, so 
all are sinners, and condemned in the sight of 
God, although the degree of their guilt, and 
consequently the degree of their punishment, 
may be different. 

After the time of Augustine, various attempts 
were made to obviate the innumerable mistakes 
which attended this doctrine de peccato originali; 
and among others, a distinction was made be- 
tween peccatum originate and peccata actualia — 
a distinction which is first found in Joh. Cassi- 
anus in the fifth century. Vide Coll. P. P. 
Sceticor. xiii. 7. There were always, however, 
among the catholics, even those of ancient 
times, not a few who disapproved of the appli- 
cation of the term peccatum to the corrupt, moral 
condition of man, and wished it to be abolished. 
And it happened to many, merely because they 
rejected this word, to be counted among the Pe- 
lagians or Semi-Pelagians. Maiay of the school- 
men, too, preferred not to use this term ; though 
it is true, indeed, that among them there were 
many actually inclined to Pelagianism. Vide 
No. 3. The schoolmen rather chose to use the 
term employed by Tertullian — viz., vitium ori- 
ginate or naturale; or vitiositas, or dtpravatio 
congenita, or naturalis. 

As to the German word in use on this sub- 
ject, Erb-sunde, (hereditary sin,) it is still more 
inconvenient than the Latin peccatum origi- 
nate ; for the latter admits, according to com- 
mon usage, of a correct interpretation, and so, 
if it is properly explained, may be still retained. 
But the German word Siinde (sin) is elsewhere 
always used to denote an action, so far as it is 
contrary to the divine law ; but never a state. 
Instead of this word, it would be better to use 
the word Erb-fehler, (hereditary defect.) or still 
better, Erb-ilbel, (hereditary evil,) or more defi- 
nitely, das sittliche Erb-ilbel, (the moral heredi- 
tary evil.) Many of our protestant theologians 
have therefore for a long time preferred to use 
the term natural depravity. Vide s. 87, I. 2, 3. 
Dr. Teller proposed to use the word Temper a- 
ments-sunde, (sin of the constitution or temper- 
ament;) this, however, is inappropriate, since 
it bears another sense — viz., some kind of pre- 
vailing sin, to which a man is especially inclined 
from his peculiar organization, or his individual 
naturel. Cf. s. 75. 

Note. — The term peccatum originate, as used 
in the symbolic books of the Lutheran church, 
comprises the following things : — (1) The defi- 
ciency in true holiness and piety which is found 
in all men without exception, accompanied with 
a deficiency in powers for attaining holiness by 
their own exertions. This is just and scrip- 
tural ; for in order to be morally good and pious, 
it is necessary for us to become so ; we are not 
born with this character; we do not possess in 
ourselves the powers requisite to this end, and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



293 



are dependent on divine assistance. (2) The 
inordinate passions and appetites which are 
found in all men ; the bias within us to do what 
is forbidden, and to leave undone what is re- 
quired; of the truth of which every one's own 
experience may convince him, and which is con- 
stantly insisted upon in the scriptures. Thus, 
by peccatu?n originate, the symbolic books un- 
derstand a state of man which, morally consi- 
dered, is not, from the earliest period, what it 
should be, or what it originally was; and this 
is certainly just and true, both according to 
scripture and experience. 

These two things taken together are what 
the theologians of the Lutheran and reformed 
ehurches mean when they say, man is born with 
sin, or in sin— an expression which is taken 
from Ps. li. 7. And although this expression 
is liable to be misunderstood, and indeed in that 
passage is used in a different sense, yet the thing 
which they intend by the use of it is true and 
conformed to the Bible. Vide Morus, p. 117, 
118. 

It is a common, but very unworthy art of 
many of the opponents of the doctrine of natu- 
ral depravity, to make the German word denot- 
ing this doctrine, Erb-sunde, (hereditary sin,) 
which is acknowledged on all hands to be in- 
convenient, the object of ridicule, as if the 
doctrine of the protestant church agreed with 
the untenable positions in Augustine's theory. 
While they confute this theory only, they as- 
sume the air of having overthrown the doctrine 
of native depravity itself. The scriptural texts 
which stand in their way are brought into 
agreement with the most different modern phi- 
losophical schools, by the aid of that artificial 
exegesis which makes anything from every- 
thing; so that the scriptures must say just that, 
and that only, which the authors of these philo- 
sophical systems require. Vide Teller's Wor- 
terbuch, art. Sicnde, and other attempts of the 
theologians of the Kantian school. 

SECTION LXXX. 

RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION RESPECT- 
ING THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL DEPRAVITY, 
AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE MODE OF TEACHING 
THIS DOCTRINE. 

I. Results of the foregoing Discussion. 

(1) The doctrine of the holy scriptures, that 
the native depravity which discloses itself in the 
preponderance of sense over reason is to be found 
in all men without exception, is confirmed by 
the undeniable experience of all men of all 
times ; and every individual may be convinced 
of its truth by his own daily experience, and by 
observation of those around him. Any one who 
is in the habit of self-inspection will be compel- 



led to acknowledge that the confession of Paul, 
Rom. vii. 18, seq., " To will is present with me, 
but how to perform that which is good I find 
not," is drawn, as it were, from his own soul. 
Even the heathen nations, and those of their 
chief philosophers, who did not employ them- 
selves with empty speculations, but who built 
their views upon the observation of man and of 
themselves, recognised the existence of this evil. 
Vide s. 74. 

(2) But although philosophy must recognise 
the actual existence of this evil, it can give no 
satisfactory answer with regard to the origin of 
it. Vide Kant, Vom radikalen Bosen. All the 
philosophemes upon this subject, from Aristotle 
down to Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, 
are full of gaps ; and in surveying them we meet 
with one unanswerable question after another. 
Vide s. 74. Cf. Michaelis, Moral, th. i. s. 127, 
seq. But there appears in almost all nations a 
pressing necessity to believe that God made the 
human race in a more perfect state than that in 
which it now exists. But they were still unable 
to solve the riddle. Now this riddle is solved in 
the holy scriptures more satisfactorily than by 
all the philosophers. Vide s. 56, ad fin. s. 74, 
75, &c. And any one who understands the scrip- 
tural account of the fall of man as a mere fable, 
or as anything beside a narrative of what actu- 
ally took place, and who is incautious enough 
to teach these views to the common people and 
the young, takes away that for which he can 
give nothing in return; although he may not 
design it, he lowers the authority of the Bible 
in the view of his hearers, and does an injury 
which he will not be able easily to repair. 

There were two theories which were more 
prominent among the Christian teachers of for- 
mer times, and which even now have their advo- 
cates — viz., the Jfrican, or Juguslinian, and the 
Pelagian. Vide s. 79. The latter, which nearly 
accords with the views of the stoics, plainly dis- 
agrees with the doctrine of the Bible, and, more- 
over, has experience against it. Vide s. 79, No. 
3. But since it wears, on the first view, a more 
rational aspect, and since especially it is more 
agreeable to the wishes of men, who had rather 
view themselves in a favourable than an unfa- 
vourable light, it is not to be wondered at that, 
in spite of experience, it should have obtained, 
and still possess, considerable currency. But 
in Augustine's theory there are also incorrect 
and untenable positions, and he deducts n.nny 
false conclusions from texts of scripture wrongly 
understood. These misinterpretations were in 
part occasioned, and in part promoted, by the 
Latin established version, which Augustine fol- 
lowed, and to which he and his fellow teachers 
were accustomed from their youth. Besides, 
Augustine's views on the subject of interpreta- 
tion were deficient. The middle course between 
2b 2 



294 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



these extremes is accordant with the Bible, with 
experience, and the system of the protestant 
church. Vide s. 77, 78. 

The objection, that the scriptural doctrine of 
native depravity is irreconcilable with the justice 
and goodness of God, does not lie so much against 
the scriptural doctrine itself as against certain 
false and unscriptural notions which are some- 
times connected with it — e. g., against the Au- 
gustinian theory. Let the following things be 
considered — viz., 

(«) It is incorrect to assert, as some do, that 
if Adam himself had maintained his original 
innocence, no one of his posterity either would 
or could have sinned. This is nowhere taught 
in the Bible. The possibility of erring and 
sinning would have continued, both with Adam 
himself and with his posterity, even if he had 
not at that time fallen. And had it been impos- 
sible for the posterity of Adam, supposing him 
to have persevered in holiness, to be otherwise 
than holy, their goodness would have had no 
value, and would not be entitled to reward. 
Man would have been a machine, having no 
power to move except in one pre-established 
and appointed way. It does not, therefore, fol- 
low that there would have been no error and no 
sin, and consequently no punishment of sin, 
among men, if our progenitor had not fallen. 
It is indeed true, that both particular individuals, 
and the race of man at large, would have been 
by degrees more and more confirmed in good- 
ness, if the state of innocence (or the state of 
the even balance of the human powers) had 
continued, as is actually the case with good 
angels; but this confirmation cannot be under- 
stood in reference to men more than to angels 
as removing the possibility of sinning. 

(b) When now God foresaw that sin could 
not be hindered among men, since they are 
beings endowed indeed with a moral nature, but 
at the same time possessing appetites and pas- 
sions limiting the exercise of reason, he provided 
that the guilt and ill-desert of sin should be di- 
minished in Adam's posterity by allowing Adam 
to fall, and so a general weakness and depravity 
to pervade the whole race. A stronger and more 
incorrupt race would, if it sinned, sin far more 
deeply and unpardonably than a weaker. 
Hence we see that the sin of the fallen angels 
is always described in the Bible as far more de- 
serving of punishment and more unpardonable 
than the sin of the first parents of our race ; and 
iheir whole moral apostasy is described as far 
greater than that of man. Those among Adam's 
weaker posterity who resist the inducements to 
sin, and are diligent in the pursuit of holiness, 
do, as it were, overcome themselves; and their 
virtue can therefore have so much more internal 
worth, and be so much the more deserving of re- 
ward. Those, on the other hand, who yield to 



these temptations, and sin, although they are 
by no means free from the desert of punishment, 
(since God has made known the means by 
which sin may be guarded against,) may yet, 
on account of their weakness and inability, hope 
for pity, forbearance, and a mitigation of punish- 
ment. Vide on this subject, Michaelis, Von 
der Siinde, s. 563. Perhaps God designed by 
permitting the fall to promote many other and 
unknown ends. Perhaps the example of the 
fall of man may be instructive to the higher 
orders of spiritual beings, who are always de 
scribed in the Bible as standing in intimate con- 
nexion with man and having knowledge respect- 
ing him. 

(c) Death was to Adam the proper punishment 
of his sin ; to his posterity it is not, properly 
speaking, punishment, but the inevitable conse- 
quence of the sin of Adam. For no mortal can 
beget an immortal. Vide s. 78, III. Since now 
death frees us from this mortal body, the princi- 
pal seat of our sinful depravity, and since the 
Christian doctrine gives us the comforting as- 
surance that in the future life we shall possess 
a more perfect body, (1 Cor. xv. &c.,) death 
can no longer be regarded as a punishment, but 
must rather be considered as a blessing, by all 
those who fall in with the order appointed by 
God, and fulfil the conditions on which he has 
promised happiness after this life. Now it is 
a doctrine which we are everywhere expressly 
taught in the New Testament, that we are in- 
debted for this good, for this blessed immortality, 
to Jesus Christ; and the observation of Paul is 
therefore well founded, thatthrough the institutes 
which God has established for the recovery of 
the human race through Christ, through the di- 
vine plan of mercy, we have gained far more 
than we lost through the sin of Adam and its 
consequences; Rom. v. 15, seq. 

Note. — The disposition to transgress the 
moral law, from which no man is free, cannot 
be derived from any deficiency of reason, from 
error, or want of knowledge. There may be 
from hence a possibility of sinning either from 
ignorance or design, but a mere possibility of 
sinning, and an inclination to sin, are very dif- 
ferent things. And we feel this dispositioft 
even where there is no error or defect of know- 
ledge, yea, even in those cases in which we see 
most clearly that obedience to the moral law 
will conduce to our best advantage, and that by 
disobedience we shall render ourselves misera- 
ble. Nor can it be a mere fault of education. For 
then there would be, among all the multiplied 
and often opposite modes of education, some one 
which would furnish us with men who would 
be free from this disposition. Nor is it, as has 
been before observed, the effect merely of the 
bad examples which we witness in others. This 
depravity is not exhibited in all men in the same 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



29b 



way. One man is either little, or not at all in- 
clined to those things for which another has a 
great propensity. All, however, are inclined 
to perform many actions which they themselves 
acknowledge to be sinful and injurious. There 
is in men a general anomaly, or a general dispo- 
sition to transgress the moral law, which does 
not determine to any one particular vice, but 
which is differently modified in different per- 
sons. Since this disposition seeks out so 
many and so different deviations, it has a differ- 
ent aspect in different individuals; but in all 
alike, it appears as a strong disinclination to 
certain duties, and a vehement propensity to 
certain actions which are morally bad. What 
is common to this depravity, as it appears in all 
men, is the preponderance of that which is re- 
presented to us as good or evil by our lower ap- 
petites, over that which we perceive in the use 
of reason to be good. From this depravity no 
age is free, nor can it in this life be ever wholly 
eradicated. The faults of youth, such as levity 
and prodigality, do, indeed, often disappear in 
later periods of life, but their place is supplied 
by others, such as ambition and jealousy; and 
many of the excellences which belong to the pe- 
riod of youth — e. g., innocence, openness, and vi- 
vacity, often gradually decay in the years of man- 
hood ; and although a more advanced age seems 
to have the advantage in point of experience and 
exercise, yet still it cannot be affirmed as a ge- 
neral fact, that this higher age is on the whole 
morally better than youth. It is therefore a 
well-known proverb, founded in experience, to 
say respecting old men who only seem exter- 
nally to have reformed, that they have not for- 
saken sin, but sin has forsaken them. 

II. On Teaching this Doctrine. 

The questions relating to this subject are, 
Whether the doctrine of man's native depravity 
ought to be exhibited in popular instruction ? and 
if so, in what way ? On this general subject, 
cf. Knapp's Essay in Ewald's Christlicher Mo- 
natsschrift; Jahrg. 2, 1802; bd. 2, st. 1, s. 3, f. 

(1) The doctrine of native depravity, as we 
are taught it both by scripture and experience, 
is very disturbing, depressing, and humbling 
in its tendency, The light in which man is 
here taught to regard himself is not at all favour- 
able or pleasant, and is calculated to lead him 
to tremble for himself. But feelings of this 
kind, although highly salutary, are yet unplea- 
sant to the natural man (crapxis^, ^wq), and 
for the very reason that he is of such a character, 
he is opposed to everything which awakens feel- 
ings of this kind ; he prefers to keep this subject 
out of sight, and is unwilling to hear anything 
respecting it. It is with him as with a sick 
man, who is unwilling to acknowledge, either 
to himself or others, that he is sick, partly be- 



cause he is ashamed of his sickness, and partly 
because he is reluctant to adopt the severe re- 
medies necessary to his cure. Thus it is with 
the carnal man who refuses to undertake the 
radical cure of the disorders of his soul, because 
he would feign conceal his sickness from his 
own view, and dreads to make the bitter sacri- 
fices which his moral recovery and holiness re- 
quire. He would rather, therefore, persuade 
himself and others that he is good, or at least 
that his case is not so bad as might seem. Now 
if any one does not believe that he is sick, nei- 
ther does he believe that he is in any need of a 
remedy or of a physician; or if he thinks he is 
only slightly sick, he hopes he shall be able to 
help himself, or to recover without the aid of 
medicine. And so any one who thinks in the 
same way with regard to his moral state will 
infallibly be cold and indifferent in the use of 
all the means which the Christian doctrine pre- 
scribes for the sanctification of the heart; he 
will even scorn them as idle and superfluous, 
because he sees no necessity for them ; yea, he 
will even feel aversion and hatred towards them, 
as a sick man is accustomed to do towards a 
bitter and disagreeable medicine. It is there- 
fore very intelligible, and may be psychologi- 
cally explained, why the opinion, that man is 
not so depraved as is sometimes represented, 
and the delusion that the Christian means of 
cure are inappropriate, superfluous, and may be 
easily dispensed with, should gain currency in 
an age and among men distinguished above 
others in egotism, self-sufficiency, and the love 
of worldly enjoyment. 

(2) We may hence explain the fact why the 
doctrine of human depravity is repugnant to so 
many in our age, and why it is almost wholly 
set aside in the instruction of the common people 
and of the young. The pretext by which the 
omission of this doctrine is commonly justified 
is, that it inspires men with aversion to God, 
that it makes them irresolute and spiritless in 
the pursuit of virtue, and that it leads to an un- 
worthy depreciation of oneself, and even to de- 
spair, which prevents all improvement. These 
effects, however, can never be feared when this 
doctrine is taught as it is in the holy scriptures. 
Who can bring an example to shew that the 
scriptural doctrine ever produced such an effect'? 
On the contrary, experience shews that this doc- 
trine, rightly exhibited, produces just the oppo- 
sit effects, and animates man in the pursuit of 
holiness, and leads him to the highest exertions 
of all his powers for the attainment of it. Vide 
s. 77, IL, ad finem. 

The true ground why so many forbear to 
preach this doctrine is, that, for the reasons just 
now suggested, it is displeasing to many of their 
hearers, whose favour they would gladly conci- 
liate. It is with them as with those respecting 



296 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



whom John speaks, ch. xii. 43. Others have 
never clearly considered the reasons why they 
forbear to preach this doctrine, but follow blindly 
the example set them by some of the eminent 
and lauded preachers of the day. For the great 
majority of men, and even of teachers, never 
think for themselves, but depend upon authority. 
Again : there are, alas ! many religious teach- 
ers who are themselves unrenewed men, who 
even while at home were sunk deep in moral 
corruption, who become still more depraved at 
the schools and universities, and who, when 
they assume the sacerdotal robe, alter only their 
outward deportment, without experiencing a 
radical change of heart. Such are blind leaders 
of the blind. 

(3) The teachers who adopt the principles 
just mentioned are accustomed to descant large- 
ly upon the worth, the nobleness, and the dignity 
of man, since discourse like this is heard with 
pleasure, and it is far more agreeable to be 
praised than blamed. In this strain, therefore, 
preachers of such a character often indulge, and 
even in their instruction of the young dwell on 
nothing but the dignity of man. In this way 
many of them suppose they shall elevate man, 
inspire him with a zeal for virtue, and by means 
of this feeling of honour raise him to nobleness of 
character. And it is, indeed, right to point man 
to the noble faculties which he possesses, &c. 
This is often done in the Bible. This, how- 
ever, we should do, and not leave the other un- 
done. In the Bible this is always done in con- 
nexion with the doctrine of the moral apostasy 
of man. If this doctrine be not brought into 
connexion with it, the doctrine of the dignity of 
man is injurious; it nourishes pride and self- 
righteousness, and prevents that self-knowledge 
which is so essential, and thus leads aside from 
the way of true reformation, such as God will 
accept. It leads men to think that they are per- 
fect, and have no need of reformation ; that they 
are in no danger, and at most need only to be 
ennobled and perfected, and not to be radically 
renewed. What must be the effect of a doc- 
trine like this in an age in which self-confidence 
and selfish blindness are the prevailing fault, 
and have so deeply imbued the minds even of 
children and youth, that at the age when they 
are just beginning to learn, they think them- 
selves wiser than their teachers, and from the 
height to which they suppose themselves to 
have attained, seem to look down with compas- 
sion upon the aged. 

(4) From these observations it follows, that 
it is the duty of a Christian teacher to exhibit 
the doctrine of moral depravity without regard 
to the fear or the favour of man, after the exam- 
ple which the inspired teachers have set him — 
the ancient prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. 
The times have changed nothing belonging to 



this doctrine, nor can they. Human nature is 
the same now that it has been in every preced- 
ing age; and the inculcation of this doctrine is 
not less important in an enlightened than in an 
unenlightened period. It is by this doctrine 
alone that the necessity of an entire moral re- 
novation of the human heart can be placed in a 
strong light; here man learns to understand 
himself aright, and to think humbly with regard 
to himself; here he learns to see clearly the 
difficulties and mighty hindrances which lie in 
the way of conversion, and attains to the con- 
viction that he needs help, and that without di- 
vine assistance he can do nothing. Truly and 
beautifully has Seneca said, Iniiium est salutis, 
notiiia peccafi. Nam qui peccare se nescit, cor- 
rigi non vult. Dtprehendos te oportet antequam 
cmendes, Ep. 28. This is the great principle 
upon which the inspired teachers proceeded in 
all their instructions. Christ, for example, took 
this course in his conversation with Nicodemus, 
however strange the doctrine might have ap- 
peared to the latter. And there is no better way, 
none which is more capable of vindication on 
psychological grounds. 

(5) But in order that the teaching of this 
doctrine may attain its end, it is not enough to 
set forth the mere dogma, and to prove it con- 
nectedly from the holy scriptures, and then to 
speak of it in the abstract,- for in that case the 
wholesome and necessary application is easily 
neglected by the hearer. On the contrary, it 
ought rather to be spoken of in the concrete; 
at least, the abstract statement should always 
be applied to particular concrete cases, and es- 
pecially to ourselves. This is the wise mode of 
teaching exhibited in the Bible. Vide s. 77, 
III. 2. In the popular exhibition of this doc- 
trine, therefore, the teacher should begin with 
making his hearer observant of himself, and en- 
deavour to convince him of his own depravity, 
or of the preponderance of appetite over reason 
in himself, as learned from his own experience. 
This is the easiest way to bring the contemner 
of this doctrine to silence. For example, let the 
teacher in his instructions go over all the points 
which Paul has cited Rom. vii. 7 — 23, as proof 
of the moral corruption of man, without at first 
remarking that this is taught in the Bible. The 
hearer must confess that he finds it in himself 
exactly as described — that he is not what he 
ought to be, and what his own moral feeling 
teaches him that he must be, in order to please 
God. When he is brought to this conviction, 
then let him be shewn that the doctrine of scrip- 
ture corresponds with his own experience. In 
this way he will acquire regard for the Bible, as 
he will see that it gives no ideal description of 
man, but represents him as he actually is. Then 
he will be constrained to acknowledge: "Yes! 
I too am actually so; it is as if I myself were 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



297 



here described." Has any one come to this 
point, there is hope that he may be inclined to 
employ the means of recovery prescribed in the 
scriptures, and especially in the Christian doc- 
trine; particularly if he is shewn how and 
wherefore they have so beneficial an effect ; and 
if is made to consider, that our own good in- 
tentions and all the means by which we attempt 
to help ourselves are inefficacious. In this way 
is the feeling of the need of help and of a Re- 
deemer to be excited in man ; and thus does the 
knowledge of our moral depravity and inability 
lead to Christ, as to him through whom alone it 
can be removed. But all this instruction will 
be in danger of failing of its effect, unless the 
hearer perceives that the teacher himself has a 
personal interest in the matter, that he speaks 
from his own internal conviction, and that he 
has experienced on his own heart the efficacy of 
the means prescribed, and shews their effect in 
his life and walk. 

(6) None of the profound and learned inves- 
tigations of philosophers and theologians, re- 
specting the nature of human depravity, the 
mode of its propagation, &c, should have any 
place in the practical and popular exhibition of 
this doctrine. It is enough for the teacher to 
stop with the simple doctrine of the Bible, and 
merely teach, (a) that all men have been ac- 
tually so, ever since our first parents transgress- 
ed the divine command ; and (6) that, according 
to the Bible, the ground why all their posterity 
are such lies in our first parents ; but that (c) 
we owe the improvement of our condition, and 
the restoration of our lost holiness and happi- 
ness to Jesus Christ, since he redeems or frees 
us from sin and its evil consequences, and turns 
this evil to our good ; Rom. vii. 25. For more 
on this point, vide the article on Christ. 

SECTION LXXXI. 

EXPLANATION OF THE IDEA WHICH IS COMMONLY 
CONNECTED IN THEOLOGY WITH THE EXPRES- 
SION " ACTUAL SINS j" AND OF THE DIFFER- 
ENT DEGREES OF SIN. 



We have thus far treated of the moral corrup- 
tion of human nature, and its causes ; we have 
also given a history of this doctrine ; s. 74 — 80. 
We now proceed to consider particular sinful 
actions, whose source is found in this same mo- 
ral depravity. Vide s. 73, ad finem. We shall 
treat this subject under the two following divi- 
sions — viz., (1) The nature of particular sinful 
actions, and their different kinds and divisions, 
s. 81 — 84; (2) The different state which arises 
in man on the commission of sin, s. 85 — 87. 

I. Additional Explanation of the idea of Sin. 
We have before shewn, under s. 73, I., what 
b meant by trne terms sin and law ,• and this will 
38 



be presupposed in the remarks which follow. 
Since now we must regard this natural depravity 
as a sinful state, and since we must regard par- 
ticular sinful actions as the consequence and re- 
sult of this state, theologians, since the time of 
Cassianus, have adopted the division of sin into 
peccatum originate and peccatum actuate. Vide 
s. 79, No. 4, ad finem, and Morus, p. 118, supra. 
Morus has, indeed, omitted the special consi- 
deration of the doctrine de peccato actuali in his 
Dogmatik, and assigned the discussion of it 
wholly to the department of Morals. But the 
general theory of actual sins belongs to the pro- 
vince of Dogmatical theology, and is commonly 
introduced by theologians into this department. 

Actual sins are, moreover, commonly denomi- 
nated peccata sensu strictiori. By actions, how- 
ever, theologians do not mean, in treating of this 
subject, those merely which are external — i. e., 
which are committed by means of the body and 
its organs ,• but also those which are internal — 
i. e., those which take place merely in the soul, 
and are performed in thoughts, desires, &c. 
Hence it has been common to subdivide actual 
sins into external and internal, of which we shall 
say more hereafter. Actualis is a term which 
belongs to the later Latin, and was first used by 
Macrobius ; it answers to the older term actu- 
osus, active, consisting in action ; or to activus, 
which is sometimes employed in the same sense. 
Hence Cicero says, vita actuosa, virtus actuosa, 
Nat. Deor. i. 40 ; instead of which Macrobius 
writes, virtutes actuates. Seneca has, activa 
philosophia, Ep. 95, and Quinctilian opposes 
activum (the practical) to speculativum, (the the- 
oretical.) But sinful actions are denominated 
peccata actualia'm opposition to native depravity, 
because they involve an actus transitorius, such 
as exists in all human actions; they have a be- 
ginning and an end. But original sin has in 
this life no end, but continues as long as man 
remains upon the earth. It is not an act, but a 
state. The application of the term sin to this 
state is indeed inconvenient, because, according 
to the definition given of sin, native depravity 
cannot be literally so called ; a more appropriate 
name would be, hereditary evil. But since the 
former term is now common among theologians, 
and the thing denoted by it is accordant both 
with reason and scripture, it must be understood, 
and its ground must be known. 

In explanation of the subjective definition of 
sin given s. 73, I. — viz., a free action which is 
not conformed to the law of God, or which devi- 
ates from this law, let the following additional 
remarks be considered. When we would judge 
respecting any action, internal or external, whe- 
ther it is sinful or not, our decision must depend 
upon the three following conditions — viz., 

(1) That the man who commits the action 
had sufficient knowledge of the law, {notitia 



298 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



kgis.) And this presupposes (a) that the law 
was actually given to man; (b) that it was 
known by this individual, or at least, that it 
snould have been known by him, and that so it 
is his own fault if he remained unacquainted 
with it; and (c) that he understood the sense of 
the law, or might have understood it. Is any one 
of these conditions wanting, the act contravening 
the law is, indeed, an evil, (foolish, hurtful in 
its tendency, &c.,) but not sin. Vide s. 73, I. 
Cf. Rom. iv. 15; v. 13, a^tapi'i/'a ovx tXkoysltai, 

fiq OVtO$ VOflOV. 

(2) That the action does not, in fact, agree 
with the law. The determination of this matter 
has often in particular cases more difficulty than 
one would think. The over-anxious and scru- 
pulous man often regards certain actions, both 
internal and external, as sinful, while they are 
not forbidden in the divine law ; and in this way 
he needlessly disquiets himself. Another man 
mistakes on this subject through indifference 
and carelessness. But a far more common fault 
is, to allow self-love to pronounce too light and 
partial a sentence upon our own actions, while, 
on the other hand, we judge the actions of others 
too severely. Vide Matt. vii. 3 — 5. Nor is the 
obligation of the law the same for all. Some 
laws are not universally obligatory, but binding 
only on certain individuals, and in particular 
cases. The same action may be sin in one man, 
and not in another. One does it with a convic- 
tion that it is not wrong, and so sins not; the 
other is doubtful, or convinced in his heart 
that it is wrong, and yet does it, and sins. 
This may be applied to the so-called d5ia<j>opa, 
indifferent things, fastings, amusements, card- 
playing, dancing, &c. Vide 1 Cor. viii. and ix., 
and Rom. xiv. 23. The further discussion of the 
subject of sin ex conscientia errante sive erronea 
belongs to the department of theological Morals. 
(3) That in the commission of the action, 
man had the use of his free-will, (to avt^ovaibv, 
or itev^spu 7tpoalp£<5i$.) An action which we 
have been compelled to do against our will, or 
which we have done without consciousness, 
cannot be regarded as our own action. This is 
true not only of evil, but of good actions. In 
order, now, that the action of a man may be free 
and so imputable, he must in doing it (a) be in 
a state in which he can exercise his understand- 
ing, and determine his will according to that 
which his understanding approves ; for this is 
essential to freedom. Therefore no infant, no 
idiot, no insane person, no sleeper or dreamer, 
can commit sin, because he has not the use of 
his understanding. The shameful words and 
deeds, the blasphemy, &c, which we often see 
and hear in delirious persons, are not sins, be- 
cause they are not free actions ; and if they are 
afterwards disposed to trouble themselves on ac- 
count of what they may have said or £one in 



such a state, they ought to be set at rest. In 
order that a man's action may be free, (b) his 
power to act must not be hindered by external 
circumstances. If, therefore, in any case a 
man is compelled by some external necessity 
to act wholly against his will, or if he is barely 
restrained in acting, so that he cannot proceed 
wholly according to his own will and intent, 
then his action is not free, or at least not per- 
fectly free, and so is not imputable, or is not 
wholly so. Everything depends here upon the 
intention. A man designs to do an evil deed, 
but is prevented from accomplishing his pur- 
pose by external circumstances, and so does 
not sin indeed externally, but he does in his 
heart, and in the judgment of God and of his 
own conscience is deserving of punishment. 
The case is the same as to the imputation of a 
good act, the execution of which has been pre- 
vented by external circumstances. Vide Matt. 
v. 23, coll. s. 82. 

II. The different degrees of Sin. 

In common life sins are distinguished into 
gross and great sins, and light and trifling sins, 
and the latter are judged deserving of less pu- 
nishment than the former. This difference is 
founded in the nature of the thing itself. For 
whoever sins, acts against the obligation which 
rests upon him to fulfil certain duties; but this 
obligation has different degrees, according to 
the difference of the powers of the acting sub- 
ject, and of his motives to action. Hence it 
follows that one commits greater sins who has 
more power and stronger motives for doing 
right than one with whom these powers and 
motives were weaker. Again : the less the 
motives and inducements to sin, and the more 
the reasons which were calculated to deter from 
the commission of it, so much the worse is the 
sin, and so much the more deserving of punish- 
ment. The motives tending to withhold from 
sin are to be judged of from the peculiar situa- 
tion, the circumstances, the mode of thinking, 
and the knowledge of each individual; also, 
according to the nature of the person or thino 
with respect to which the sin is committed, (e 
g., sins against parents, to whom we are under 
greater obligations than to others;) and also 
according to the consequences which flow from 
the sin. The consideration of this matter, how- 
ever, properly falls into the department of theo- 
logical morals. 

In entire conformity with these principles 
does the holy scripture decide respecting the 
different degrees of sin, and their desert of pu- 
nishment. Vide Matt. v. 22; John, xix. II, 
fitl^cav afiapria; Luke, xii. 47, 48; Matthew, 
xi. 22—24; l Tim. i. 15; 2 Peter, ii. 20, 21. 
But since this difference of degree in sin de- 
pends upon so many things, which are not 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



29? 



always obvious, and cannot be duly estimated 
by others ; upon the dispositions and intentions 
concealed in the heart of him who acts; upon 
his knowledge, his temptations, his powers and 
capacities; it is often impossible for us in par- 
ticular cases to form a correct judgment. God 
only, who knows the heart of man, and the cir- 
cumstances in which he acts, can judge truly and 
decisively respecting his actions. To him, there- 
fore, should this decision be left. Vide Rom. 
xiv. 4, av ti$ si o xpivav a%%6tpiov olx'tt'qv ; James, 
iv. 12 ; Matt. vii. 1, seq. On this account, it is 
our wisdom, as well as our duty, although con- 
trary to the common disposition of men, to judge 
ourselves with all possible strictness, but the 
faults of others with forbearance and toleration. 
This, too, is according to the direction of Christ, 
Matt. vii. 1 — 5, coll. Luke, xiii. 2 — 5. Baum- 
garten has discussed this subject minutely in his 
"Diss, de gradibus peccatorum ;" Halae, 1744, 
Note 1. — The philosophers both of ancient 
and modern times have been almost entirely 
agreed that there is a difference of degree' in 
sins ; with the exception only of the stoics, who 
maintained the paradoxical opinion, that all sins 
are alike. Vide Cicero, Parad. iii. ; Seneca, 
Ep. 66; Cicero, De finibus honor, et malor. iv. 
27, seq. They assumed that all virtues were 
equal ; and hence it followed, by way of contrast, 
that all vices were equal ; and hence, that all the 
virtuous and all the vicious were, in their view, 
on the same level — e. g., one who killed a slave 
without a cause committed, in their view, an 
equal sin with one who abused his father. In 
this doctrine they were opposed chiefly by the 
peripatetics. But although they maintained 
this equality of virtues and of vices, they yet 
ascribed to them a different extent and limita- 
tion, so that some were capable of palliation, 
others unpardonable; because some deviated 
more than others from the law ; and so with re- 
gard to the virtues, which were judged of by 
them according to their different utility. Hence 
we see that in substance they agreed with others, 
and only differed from them by this striking 
proposition, which they selected on account of 
its strangeness. All which they mean to affirm 
is, that one transgression is as much a trans- 
gression as another; and all, in respect to their 
internal nature, are alike, because they are all 
violations of the rule, and so are opposite to the 
virtues. And the same is taught by the text, 
James, ii. 10, 11. But this internal nature of 
virtues and vices cannot be made the standard 
by which their greatness is determined, but the 
consequences which result from them, the pur- 
pose and intention of the soul from which they 
flow, and sometimes even the mere "so it 
seems good" of the lawgiver. Vide Tiedemann, 
System der Stoischen Philosophie, th. iii. s. 
151—156. 



Note 2. — Some theologians have maintained 
that sin, or rather the guilt of sin, is infinite in 
the philosophical sense, (culpam sive reatum 
peccatorum esse infinitum.') They resort to this 
statement in order to explain more easily the 
infiniteness of the satisfaction made by Christ, 
and also the eternity of the punishments of hell. 
Whoever, they say, breaks the laws of the 
Infinite Being, brings upon himself infinite 
guilt. But this statement, taken in the strict 
philosophic sense, is incorrect. For (a) it 
would follow from this that there was no differ- 
ence of objects ; for the infinite is always like to 
itself, and cannot be increased or diminished. 
(b) An action which is directed against a parti- 
cular object, does not, of necessity, partake of 
the nature of this object. Whether the object 
is finite or infinite is a matter of indifference 
with regard to the nature of the action, and 
makes no alteration in its character. A finite 
action cannot become infinite, or involve infinite 
guilt, merely because it relates to an infinite ob- 
ject. If it could, then every good action agree- 
ing with the divine law must be infinite, and 
have an infinite worthiness; and so the know- 
ledge which man has of God must be infinite 
because it relates to an infinite being, (c) This 
whole opinion rests upon a comparison of divine 
and human things carried too far, so as to give 
rise, as in innumerable other cases, to mistake. 
We look upon the crimes committed against 
rulers and magistrates as greater than those 
committed against others, and we punish them 
more severely ; and this with justice. But the 
reason of this lies not so much in the personal 
character or worth of the injured object, as in 
care for the public welfare or security, which is 
more endangered by any indignity done to the 
magistracy than to a private person. Hence 
this crime, in order to deter others from com- 
mitting it, must be punished more severely 
than others. But this principle cannot be ap- 
plied in its whole extent to God ; although such 
human representations are often applied to him. 
For, properly speaking, God cannot be in- 
jured by men ; they cannot frustrate any of his 
plans, nor set aside, disturb, or throw effectual 
hindrances in the way of any of his counsels. 
Vide Eberhard, Apologie des Sokrates, th. i. s. 
374, f. 

SECTION LXXXII. 

DIVISIONS OF SIN IN RESPECT TO THE LAW, TO 
THE KNOWLEDGE AND PURPOSE OF HIM WHO 
COMMITS IT, AND TO THE ACTION ITSELF. 

I. In respect to the Law. 

As the law contains both precepts and prohibi- 
tions, it follows that actions deviating from it 
may be of two kinds — viz., (a) actions forbid- 
den by the law, sins of commission, (peccata 



too 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



commissionis ,•) (b) declining or refusing to per- 
form actions required by the law, sins of omis- 
sion, (peccata omissionis.) The latter kind, as 
well as the former, are mentioned in the Bible, 
and declared to be equally sins, James, iv. 17, 
"To him that knoweth to do good, (i. e., who 
has power and opportunity to perform it,) and 
doeth it not, it is sin ;" or, every omission of 
good, to perform which we are obliged by the 
divine law, is sin. Cf. Luke, xii. 47 ; Matt. vii. 
19. A man, therefore, who guards merely 
against sins of commission, so that he cannot be 
charged with any open violation of the divine 
will, does not deserve the name of an observer 
of the divine law. To this character he can lay 
claim only when he has not to condemn himself 
for omitting the good which the law required 
him to perform. Thus, not only does he sin 
who does what is forbidden by God, but he too 
who omits to do what God requires. It is, how- 
ever, a common error of men to regard sins of 
omission less than those of commission, because 
they are less externally visible. Some theolo- 
gians, too, have maintained that sins of omission 
were less heinous and punishable than those of 
commission. But this, as a general proposition, 
and applied to all cases, is false. To neglect to 
use the powers and faculties given us is often as 
injurious, sometimes more so, than the abuse of 
them in sins of commission. But because the 
evil done in sins of commission is often more 
immediate and obvious than in sins of omission, 
where the effect is more slow and is often lost 
in obscurity, we are easily led to regard the lat- 
ter as less than the former. In the eyes of God, 
the thief and the murderer may be less vile than 
the hardhearted rich man, who refuses to relieve 
his dying neighbour, and suffers him to perish 
of hunger; although the former is severely pu- 
nished by men, while the latter remains unpu- 
nished, and even may enjoy the highest repute 
and honour in the view of men. Christ teaches 
this, Matt. xxv. 41 — 46, where those who have 
not fed the hungry and clothed the naked are 
consigned by the Judge of the world to the 
place of torment, as well as other offenders. 
He applies the term xaxoitoulv to the omission 
of a good action, Mark, iii. 4; Luke, vi. 9. 

II. In respect to the Knowledge and the Will of him 
who sins. 
(1) In respect to knowledge. In case of an 
illegal action, one either knows the law or he 
does not; hence arises the division of sins into 
those of ignorance and those of knowledge, 
(jpeccata ignorantix, and peccata cum scientia 
recti commissa.) Sin, or transgression of the 
divine law, always presupposes a knowledge of 
this law; for without the knowledge of the law 
there can be no sin. Vide s. 81, I. The sin 
of ignorance is not found, therefore, in the case 



of one who is wholly ignorant of the divine law, 
or who has had no opportunity of becoming ac- 
quainted with it; in short, when his ignorance 
is without any fault on his part. Hence Christ 
says, John, xv. 22, 24, "Had I not told it unto 
you, (that I was a divine teacher,) ye would 
not have sinned, (in rejecting me;) and had I 
not done such great miracles, (by which they 
are furnished with the means of judging cor 
rectly respecting me,) they had not had sin." 
An ignorance of this kind, which is wholly 
without criminality, is called by the schoolmen, 
ignorantia invincibilis; and, however various are 
the explanations which they give of it, they are 
agreed in saying, that it must be excused, and 
cannot be imputed. In particular cases, how- 
ever, it is very difficult to judge respecting 
others, whether the ignorance of any one is, or 
is not, without any fault on his part; for what 
seems to one easy to be known, so that he can 
hardly conceive how it should appear dark or 
difficult, is attended in the view of another with 
insuperable difficulties and hindrances. Hence 
we ought to be very cautious in judging. God 
only can determine infallibly whether, and how 
far, ignorance is attended with criminality. As 
soon, however, as any one neglects the means 
within his reach of acquiring knowledge of the 
law, his ignorance is no longer innocent; he 
commits actual sin, and is liable to punishment. 
In order to a sin of ignorance, it may therefore 
be considered as essential that the person should 
have been able to know the law, and that his 
own negligence and forbearing to inquire is the 
only cause of his ignorance. 

Nearly related to these are sins committed 
through error, (per errorem commissa;) hence 
they are often classed with sins of fgnorance. 
Sins of error are those which are committed 
(a) when one erroneously supposes that a law 
exists, when in fact there is none — e. g., when 
one supposes it is his duty to persecute heretics 
and errorists ; (6) when one misunderstands the 
law, or (c) when, through error, he fails in the 
application of the law to particular cases; or 
(d) when he judges erroneously respecting the 
obligation under which he is laid by the law. 
The only question now is, whether such an error 
is without fault, or not; whether it was in our 
power to avoid it. These different kinds of sin 
are distinguished in the scriptures, and are al- 
ways there judged of, according to the principles 
here laid down — e. g., Luke, xxiii. 34, Father, 
forgive them, (there was, therefore, sin in this 
case; for they had had opportunity to become 
better instructed ; and yet there were many 
things whic diminished their guilt; and so 
Christ adds,) for they know not what they do. 
Acts, iii. 17, xata ayvoiav irtpafsT's' and Paul 
says, respecting himself, 1 Tim. i. 13, God had 
forgiven him for persecuting Christians, 6Vt 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



301 



wyvouv irioLYjGa h ariiatla. Sins in general are 
sometimes called a^vor^a-ta, Heb. ix. 7. Heb. 
r\uw, Lev. iv. 2, 13, where sins of ignorance of 
every kind are spoken of at length. The fur- 
ther discussion of this subject belongs to theo- 
logical morals. 

(2) In respect to the will. Here, again, it must 
be presupposed, that without the free determina- 
tion of the will no sin can exist. Such an act 
does not depend upon me, and is not to be re- 
garded as mine. Vide s. 81, I. ad finem. In 
order to estimate correctly the sinfulness of hu- 
man, actions, and their liability of punishment, 
regard must be had to the motives and induce- 
ments wtiich act on the human will, and the re- 
lations of men with regard to them, and the 
situatioa in which the offender is placed. Ac- 
cording to these circumstances must the degree 
of the sinfulness of actions be judged and esti- 
mated. Sins may be divided, in respect to the 
intention with which they are committed, into 
the following classes — viz., 

A. Involuntary sins, when one transgresses 
the law of God, without having formed a proper 
resolution or purpose of so doing, (si absit con- 
silium peccandi.^ Among these are: — 

(a) Sins of precipitancy, " quse," as Cicero 
says, (Offieiis, I. 8,) " repentina aliquo moiu 
animi accidunt," in opposition to deliberate sins, 
prepense and aforethought. Sins of this kind are 
committed when persons act so precipitately that 
they do not once think of thelaw 7 forbidding the 
action which they perform, or do not duly con- 
sider the reasons which lie against it. They 
ought to be carefully distinguished from sins 
which are committed through levity. In order 
that a trespass committed by me should be 
through mere precipitancy, I must not have 
sought the opportunity to sin ; the time between 
the resolution and the action must have been 
very short, and the feeling wmich has carried 
me away must have been very strong. The 
sin, too, must be followed by deep repentance, 
and a firm resolve to avoid the same in future. 
Such sins of precipitancy ought not, however, 
to be lightly regarded, because they often plunge 
us into great calamity, and, if often repeated, 
cease to be sins of precipitancy. Sins of this 
nature are mentioned in Gal. vi. 1, where Chris- 
tians are exhorted to be on their guard against 
them, and to endeavour, in the spirit of meek- 
ness, to restore those who have committed them. 
Vide also Psalm Ixxiii. 2, coll. ver. 23, seq. 

(b) Sins of weakness, (pcccata infirmitatis.') 
These, in the strictest sense of the term, can 
take place only when one knows that what he 
does is against, the law, but yet is not physically 
able to forbear doing it. They are seen in per- 
sons who are not sufficiently confirmed in good- 
ness, who have not a settled habit of doing 
right, and whose passions are very violent. 



Sins, however, cannot be said to be committed 
from mere weakness, unless he who commits 
them has used on his part a proper watchful- 
ness, and has resisted his evil desires, and 
found, after all, that it was impossible for him 
wholly to exclude them from his mind, or to 
fulfil his duties and his good intentions. This 
is the case of which Christ speaks, Matt. xxvi. 
41, "The spirit is willing (jtpo^vfiov) ; but the 
fiesh (i. e., the body, by which the soul is so 
much influenced) is weak (a&svrp) ;" i. e., as 
weak men, whose spirit dwelt in a disordered 
body, they were not able to execute the good 
purposes for which they had a willingness. 
The general maxim contained in this passage is 
the following : men are often hindered by sense 
and passion from the execution of their best 
purposes, and yield to the inducements to sin. 
The scriptures, therefore, always presuppose 
in these sins a certain goodness of heart, and 
the serious purpose of avoiding sin, and deep 
repentance on account of it when it has been 
committed. Men, therefore, who are totally 
corrupt, and in whom all moral sense is sup- 
pressed, cannot commit sins of weakness; 
though, on the other hand, it is not entirely 
true, according to the common affirmation of 
some theologians, that the pious only and the 
truly regenerate can commit sins of weakness 
and precipitancy, and that, as some will say, 
all the sins of the unrenewed are to be regarded 
as sins of design, (Germ. Bosheitssunden.') 
For, as even the pious man is frequently borne 
away by the violence of passion to the inconsi- 
derate commission of deeds which are against 
his own will and purpose; this must certainly 
be much oftener the case with unrenewed men ; 
and unless they are in a high degree corrupt and 
vicious, it cannot be affirmed with certainty re- 
specting them, that they always sin from sheer 
wickedness, and that they never fight against 
sin and endeavour to resist it. For a man who 
is addicted to a particular vice, and who often 
commits one sin, may yet have in him much 
which is good, and strive with earnestness and 
zeal against other sins to which he is tempted. 
Now, little as sin can in any case be approved 
or exculpated, it is yet true that many very 
gross outbreakings of sin in particular cases 
and persons are to be considered as sins of 
weakness and precipitancy, and that the Om- 
niscient Being often passes a different judg- 
ment, with regard to the morality of such ac- 
tions, from that which men commonly form, or 
are able to form. This is the case, for exam- 
ple, with theft, suicide, homicide, infanticide, 
and other similar crimes, which, on account of 
their consequences, need to be severely punish- 
ed by human courts. 

B. Voluntary sins, peccata voluntatis or 
proseretica, (from rtpocu'pfeaj, propositum, con* 
2C 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



silium.) These are committed with a determi- 
nation of breaking- the law of God. 

(a) When any one knows the law, and, be- 
fore he sins, distinctly recollects it, or might 
easily recollect it, and yet proceeds to sin, then 
his sin is voluntary ,• so also, when he delights 
himself in the sin which he has committed, ap- 
proves of it, and wishes for an opportunity to 
repeat it, notwithstanding 1 he is convinced, or 
might be, that the act is opposed to the divine 
law. 

(6) A sin does not cease to be voluntary and 
deliberate, because he who commits it may have 
been urged on by the command, the threat, the 
solicitation, or the contempt, of men. For in 
this case it is in my power to leave the sin un- 
done ; and if I commit it, I form the resolution 
of breaking* the law of God in order to escape 
an evil threatened me by man. Vide Matt. x. 
28. An exception is of course made with re- 
gard to proper physical compulsion — e. g., if one 
strikes another with my hand, against my own 
will, the action in such a case is no more mine. 

(c) It is not necessary that every voluntary 
sin should be a gross one; even the smallest 
violation of the law which takes place with de- 
liberation is a voluntary sin; and it may even 
be that an action which is not in itself sinful, 
and which is only regarded as such from an 
unenlightened conscience may become a volun- 
tary sin by being deliberately performed ; for 
the person in such a case forms a resolution to 
break the law of God — e. g., when one regards 
card-playing as forbidden, and yet plays. Vide 
s. 81, I. 2. 

(c?) The highest degree of voluntary sin is 
that in which one sins with willingness, from 
mere wickedness, and for the sake of the sin it- 
self, (peccatum frivolum, or ixovciov.) Every 
such sin is indeed voluntary; but every volun- 
tary sin does not spring from pure malice or 
evil. Such a sin exists only when one violates 
the law without being tempted to it by external 
solicitations or opportunities. There are, there- 
fore, many voluntary sins which do not result 
from this pure evil, and which are not commit- 
ted with this perfect cordiality; but which may 
be even reluctantly performed, through fear of 
persecution, contempt, or some other cause. In 
such a case, we have the sin of purpose, not of 
mere evil. Should one in opposition to his own 
convictions renounce religion at a time of per- 
secution, or when irreligious opinions were pre- 
valent, he would sin voluntarily ; but for him to 
do this without the influence of persecution, of 
danger, or of any solicitation from without, 
would be to sin cordially and from entire wick- 
edness. Paul names this sinning exova^, Heb. 
x. 26, where he speaks of just such a denial of 
the faith, and justly declares it to be one of the 
most heinous and unpardonable of crimes. 



(e) When from the frequent repetition of a 
sin, a habit is formed, this sin thus made habi- 
tual is denominated a vice,- e. g., the vice of 
drunkenness, &c. The term vice is used in two 
senses — viz., sometimes to denote the habit it- 
self of acting against the divine law ; sometimes 
to denote the particular actions which originate 
in such a habit. Thus when it is said, a man 
is guilty of a great vice, the meaning is, that he 
has committed a sinful action which with him 
is habitual. Hence every vicious man is a sin- 
ner — i. e., a transgressor of the divine law ; but 
every sinner is not of necessity vicious. Cf. 
Michaelis, Von der Sunde, s. 337, seq. and 
Toellner, Theologische Untersuchungen, th. i, 
b. 2, Num. 7. 

Note. — As the sacred writers always proceed 
on the principle that God, as ruler, has a right 
to prescribe laws to men, and that men, as his 
subjects, are always bound to obey ; they de- 
scribe those w r ho knowingly and wilfully trans- 
gress his authority, as enemies, rebels, and in- 
surgents, and their crimes, as rebellion, enmity, 
&c. ; so Psalm viii. 3; Rom. viii. 7; James, iv. 
4. On the contrary, the virtuous man is de- 
scribed in the Bible as obedient and submissive 
(p^iy), who willingly and cheerfully bows to 
the authorit}^ of God. Humility often stands 
for piety, and pride for wickedness, — intentional 
and deliberate sins; and the proud are those 
who commit them. Vide Ps. cxix. 21, 51 ; 
xxv. 9. W T hy are the virtuous called humble 
and obedient? All virtue should proceed from 
religious motives, from, thankful love, and a 
spirit of obedience towards God. 

(3) In respect to the actions themselves, or 
the acting subject, sins are divided into internal 
and external. We act either with our souls 
simply, or with them in connexion with the 
body, of which the soul makes use as its organ. 
This division is found in the New Testament, 
Matt. ix. 4; Rom. iii. 13, seq.; 2 Cor. vii. 1, 
(uohvGfios tfapxo? xai 7tv£vuatos.) Peccata actu- 
alia interna, are those which are committed 
merely in heart, or in thought. They are also 
called actiones (pravas) animi, and are compre- 
hended by Paul under the term J'pya, Gal. v. 19, 
seq. coll. Rom. i. 28 — 31. Among these, how- 
ever, we are not to include those evil desires 
that rise involuntarily and without guilt in the 
hearts of men ; which are rather the disease of 
the soul than its guilt. They are committed 
only when the desires after forbidden things 
rising in the heart are cherished, entertained, 
delighted in, and executed; in short, when, as 
James says, (ch. i. 15,) sin is conceived in the 
heart. Cf. s. 78, IV. 

Peccata actualia externa, are those unlawful 
actions which one commits with the body and 
its members. They are divided, according to 
the different manner in which the disposition of 



STATE INTO WHICH MAX IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



303 



the soul is made known through the body, into 
peccaia oris or linguae, (Matt. v. 22 ; Rom. iii. 
14: James, iii. 2,) gestuum and operis. The 
external or bodily actions of men are, however, 
only so far sinful and liable to punishment, as 
they depend on the soul or the will, Matt. xv. 
15 — 20 ; otherwise, they cannot be denominated 
sins. Vide No. II. 2, of this section. Hence 
Christ calls the heart of man the treasury 
(Jbpswnpos) of good and evil, where good and 
evil actions lie concealed, and are prepared, be- 
fore they are externally exhibited ; Matthew, 
xii. 34, 35, coll. Mark, vii. 21. The body is 
merely the instrument or subject, which obeys 
the commands of the sonl. Hence it is plain 
that it is false to consider internal sins as less 
heinous and deserving of punishment than ex- 
ternal sins, as is commonly done. This mistake 
results from the fact that internal sins are con- 
cealed from the view of men, and cannot there- 
fore be punished by them. We deceive our- 
selves here also, by conceiving of the relation 
between men and God as about the same as that 
which subsists between man and his fellow 
man, especially like that between subjects and 
a human ruler, where thoughts are not liable to 
punishment, so i:ng as they remain mere 
thoughts, and are unknown to other men. But 
to God the mere thoughts of men are as much 
known as their outward actions. Vide 1 Cor. 
iv. 5, and s. 22; and he can therefore bring 
them into judgment for the one as well as for 
the other. Hence, in the Bible, the very signi- 
ficant epithet, xap&oy* usf r^ (±i ifjn) is applied 
to God. It is also obvious that in very many 
cases internal sins are, in the sight of God, 
more heinous and ill-deserving than external. 
For example : one man occupies his fancy with 
shameless and unchaste images. He commits 
internal sin. alth ough no other man can reproach 
torn for it, or punish him. because it is done 
merely in heart. Another man, ordinarily 
chaste, is borne away by passion at one time 
actually to commit fornication or adultery, and 
thus brings upon himself shame or punishment 
from man, while the other goes free. Both 
have sinned. But which of the two sins is, in 
the sight of God, of the darkest character and 
the most deserving of punishment, the internal 
sr the external ? The decision in this case is 
not difficult ; and if we, like the omniscient God, 
«new the heart, we should all decide in the 
same manner with regard to offences of this na- 
ture. Hence Christ says, Matt. v. 28, whoever 
looks upon a woman to lust after her hath com- 
mitted adultery with her already in his heart. 
Oato pronounced justly a similar judgment : 
Furtum sine ulla quoque atirectatione fieri posse, 
so:a mente at que ammo, ut furtum fiat, adm- 
£orrs ; Gellius, xi. 13, ad finem. 



SECTION LXXXIII. 

OF SOME OTHER DIVISIONS OF SIX AND SINS OF 
PARTICIPATION. 

I. Some minor divisions of sins. 

Besides the divisions of sin already mention- 
ed, s. 82, there are also many others which are 
either wanting in exactness and philosophic cor- 
rectness, or are of less consequence, as they 
cast but little light upon the doctrine itself, and 
only furnish some contingent characteristics of 
particular kinds of sin. Some of them are also 
liable to great abuse. Still, as they are fre- 
quently found in the writings of the schoolmen 
and of modern theologians, it is necessary to 
understand them as matters of history. 

(1) The division of sins in respect to the 
object of the law against which the sin is com- 
mitted into those which are committed against 
God, against one's neighbour, and against one- 
self, is a very common division, but far from be- 
ing accurate and just. For the object of every 
sin. if the formale of it is considered, is God. 
The obligation to obey the law issues from him 
as the supreme Ruler and Lawgiver. Again ; 
every one who commits a sin, of whatever kind 
it may be, sins in each case against himself. 
For in the commission of it he most injures 
himself. 

Note. — We may here notice the division of 
sins which is found among the schoolmen, into 
peccaia philosophica (those committed against 
the laws of nature), and pecccda theologica, 
(those committed against the revealed will of 
God.) But no characteristics can be given by 
which these" two kinds of sinning can be distin- 
guished from each other; and the guilt and ill 
desert of both must be necessarily equal, since 
God is no less the author of the laws of nature 
than of those of Revelation. We may learn 
something of the great abuse of this division, 
of which some of the Jesuits since the close of 
the seventeenth century have been chargeable, 
from church history and theological ethics. 

(2) Sins have been divided, in respect to 
their greater or less guilt and desert of punish- 
ment, into mortalia or non-venalia ; (unpardon- 
able), and venalia (pardonable) ; — sins unto 
death, and venial sins. The phrase sin unto 
death is taken from 1 John, v. 16, where, how- 
ever it has an entirely different meaning from 
that which is given to it in this connexion — viz., 
punishment with death at a human tribunal, a 
crime icorthy of death, a capital crime. Bat this 

j phrase, as used by theologians, is taken in the 
' Hebrew sense, and denotes sins which draw 
[ after them death — i. e., divine punishment — e. 
j g., John, viii. 21, 24, d.-toi mj§ ~r auaqtia 
v ( uwv. The term peccatum venialt is found even 



304 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



in Augustine. Very different opinions, however, 
are entertained by theologians as to the mean- 
ing of this division; and there has been much 
controversy about it, especially between the the- 
ologians of the Roman and the protestant church. 
In order that this term may be understood in a 
sense conformed to the Bible, it must be ex- 
plained in the following way ; every sin, as such, 
deserves punishment, Qrdvatov artoxvst,, James, 
i. 15,) nor do the least remain unpunished. 
The pious man, therefore, either does not sin at 
all, or if he sins, deserves punishment, (death.) 
But if any one has sinned through ignorance, 
heedlessness, human weakness, or precipitancy, 
he may hope for the pardon {veniam) of his sin, 
since he did not commit it with deliberate pur- 
pose. Vide s. 82. Heinous sins remain al- 
ways deserving of punishment; but those who 
repent of their sins and with all their hearts 
turn from them, receive, according to the doc- 
trine of the scriptures, pardon from God, through 
faith in Jesus Christ; and the Christian knows, 
that through his faith his sins are truly forgiven 
him. Vide Rom. viii. 1, ov8ev xatdxpiy.a. 1 
John, i. 9, coll. ii. 1 ; Ps. ciii. 8—18. 

(3) As the phrase to cry to Heaven is used in 
the Bible with reference to particular sins, some 
have thence taken occasion to introduce the di- 
vision of sins into clamantia and non-clamantia. 
The texts are, Gen. iv. 1 ; xviii. 20 ; Ex. iii. 7 ; 
James, v. 4, coll. Is. xxii. 14. The sins men- 
tioned in these passages have been comprised in 
the following distich : — 

" Clamitat ad coelum vox sanguinis et Sodomorum, 
Vox oppressorum, merces detenta laborum." 

But this crying to Heaven is not given in the 
Bible as the definite mark of any particular sins, 
and it may be spoken of many others besides 
those to which it is actually applied. It depends 
merely upon the circumstances. It is prosopo- 
poeia, and is used to denote great and aggravated 
offences, which have terrible consequences, but 
which are not punished in this world, either be- 
cause they remain undiscovered, or because, on 
account of great public corruption, they are not 
regarded as sins. Respecting such sins, the He- 
brew says, they cry to God, or, they call to God 
for revenge — i. e., they are punished by God 
with peculiar severity, although overlooked by 
men. Among sins of this nature, e. g., is per- 
jury, respecting which it is expressly said, Ex. 
xx. 7, that God will not forbear to punish it, 
although the phrase crying to Heaven is never 
used with respect to it in the Bible. On the 
contrary, it is said, respecting the blood of 
Christ, Heb. xii. 24, that it speaks better things 
than the blood of Mel,- it calls upon God for 
favour and the forgiveness of sins, or it results 
in this, that God does pardon; while Abel's 
blood eaTied on God to punish, or was followed 



by this consequence, that God punished the 
murderer. In connexion with these texts, vide 
Sir. xxxv. 18, "The tears of the widow cry 
over themselves (to Heaven) against him who 
extorts them." 

II. Participation in the sins of others. 

In 1 Tim. v. 22, Paul makes use of the lan- 
guage xoivuivnv d/xap'tlcu$ d?^o-rp(/atj. A sin of 
participation is committed by any one, when the 
unlawful action, though not performed imme- 
diately by him, is yet done mediately through 
him, or, which is the same thing, is occasioned, 
aided, and abetted by him. Everything, there- 
fore, by which I give to my fellow man oppor- 
nity, inducement, or occasion to sin, is a sin of 
participation. The guilt which rests upon me 
is greater or less, in proportion as I could have 
foreseen, or did actually foresee and approve, 
the sins which my fellow man has committed 
in c6nsequence of these opportunities and in- 
ducements which I placed in his way. In a 
great variety of ways can one give to another 
occasion to sin; — by command, by bad advice 
and counsel (John, xviii. 14; 2 Sam. xvi. 21), 
by praising wicked deeds, by concealment, by 
omitting to place all possible resistance in the 
way of the sin, or by failing to give needful admo- 
nition, warning, or correction, (1 Sam. iii. 13.) 
The mere participator, however, has not always 
equal guilt with the one who himself directly 
commits the sin. The guilt of the one may be 
greater or less than that of the other, or that of 
both may be equal ; and this will be according 
to the circumstances in each particular case. 
The more full discussion of the whole sub- 
ject belongs properly to the department of 
morals. 

There is one class of sins of participation 
which deserves more particular notice here, al- 
though the consideration of it at large belongs 
to theological morals — viz., scandals, so called. 
We subjoin only a few remarks. XxdvSoAov 
(gfcip) is, literally, anything by which one is 
made to fall; it then signifies anything by 
which one is injured — e. g., snares, plots; 
finally, in a moral sense, it denotes not only 
every deliberate and designed solicitation of an- 
other to evil, but also everything by which one 
gives to another occasion to sin, even in a more 
indirect way, and if he had no intention of so 
doing — e. g., the bad example which one sets 
before another. This term is sometimes used 
in the discourses of Jesus to signify temptation 
to apostasy from Christianity — e. g., Matt, 
xviii. 6 ; John, xvi. 1 ; but it is also used by 
Christ in a wider sense — e. g., Matt. xvii. 27, 
where it denotes the inducement to disobey ma- 
gistrates, which one offers to another by his 
conduct; and in general oxav8a%l^£ov is with 
him to give occasion to sin, to tempt, Matt. v. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



ZOZ 



29, 30. Such an offence or scandal ma)' be 
committed either in word or in external deed. 
Actions and words may in themselves be right 
and innocent ; but if one can foresee that by them 
another may be led into sin, it is his duty to re- 
frain from them. On these principles, Paul 
judges respecting the eating of meats regarded 
as unlawful, and of flesh offered to idols, in pre- 
sence of persons who had conscientious scruples 
respecting it, Rom. xiv. 20 — 25 ; 1 Cor. viii. 
10—13. The maxims which Paul lays down 
in these places are very important and worthy 
of being laid to heart, because they are applica- 
ble to all similar cases. The accountability 
and ill-desert of a person guilty of such an of- 
fence is different, in proportion to the deed it- 
self and its consequences. The easier it is to 
avoid the seductive action, the more important 
the office and station of the one who does it ; 
the more unlawful the action is in itself, and 
the greater the evil done by it, so much the 
greater and more deserving of punishment is 
the offence. 

Scandals or offences are sometimes divided, 
in respect to the subject, into those given and 
those received— a division, however, which is in 
many respects inconvenient ; it is further treated 
of in theological morals. Scandals given are 
those actions of an injurious tendency, to the 
©mission of which one is obligated, either from 
the nature of the actions themselves, or from the 
particular circumstances of the case. To com- 
mit an action in such a case is cx<w8a%%sw tiva 
(active), Matt, xviii. 6. Scandals received are 
such actions as may prove temptations to some 
one, but which are either in themselves good 
and according to duty, or at least indifferent in 
their moral character. In the first case, one 
may give offence or occasion sin without being 
accessory to it, and so without sin on his part. 
In the second case, it is a duty to abstain from 
the action, according to the advice of Paul, as 
we have seen above. This scandalurn acceptum 
is axavSa'kio&qvaiEvfivi,, Matt. xi. 6 ; xiii. 57 (the 
first case) ; Rom. xiv. 21, (the second case.) 

In judging of sins of participation and of 
scandals, moralists often mistake by carrying 
the matter too far in theory, and thus weaken- 
ing the effect of their rule; as, on the other 
hand, men in common life are apt to judge too 
lightly and indulgently respecting such sins. In 
order to guard against this latter fault, which is 
often very injurious, it is well to reverse the 
case, and see how we should judge respecting 
participation in good, virtuous, and noble ac- 
tions, and how careful we should be to make 
out our title to reward in consequence of this 
participation. In this way many incautious 
decisions respecting these sins would be pre- 
vented. 

39 



SECTION LXXXIV. 

OF THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, 
OR THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 

The latter phrase (the sin against the Holy 
Ghost), which is introduced into theology, is 
both unscriptural and very inconvenient, on ac- 
count of its indefiniteness and vagueness. For 
there are many sins against the Holy Ghost 
which are not yet blasphemy against him. Vide 
Acts, vii. 51 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8. The blasphemy 
of the Holy Ghost (^Xatffj^ta, or Xoyoj sis t£vev' 
/xa ayiov) is the sin which is intended in this 
discussion; and this, too, is the scriptural mode 
of expressing it. The proof-texts properly re- 
lating to this subject are, Matt. xii. 31, 32; 
Mark, iii. 28 — 30; Luke, xii. 10; with which 
many compare the texts Heb. vi. 4 — 6 ; x. 29 ; 
1 Pet. iv. 14; John, xv. 22— 24, &c, although 
their reference to this subject is disputed by 
others. 

I. Historical Observations. 

Even among the ancients the explanations 
given of this subject were very diverse, and 
often very indefinite and unsettled. Athanasius 
wrote a whole dissertation on this subject; Ep. 
4, ad Serapion. In this he states, among other 
things, the opinion of Origen, that " all the sins 
committed after baptism were sins against the 
Holy Ghost." But in the writings of Origen 
now extant, he places the sin against the Holy 
Ghost in the denial of the divinity of Jesus 
Christ, by means of which he performed mira- 
cles (works of the Holy Spirit.) So Theognos- 
tus of Alexandria, Hilarius, and Ambrosius, 
although the latter in one place explains him- 
self differently. In the Pastor of Hermas this 
sin is explained to be blasphemy in general. 

Since the fourth century, two explanations 
have, however, found the most approbation ; and 
although they are both very differently modified, 
yet the most diverse representations can be ar- 
ranged under the one or the other of these gene- 
ral classes. (1) The explanation of Chrysos 
torn (Horn. 42, in Matt.), to which Hieronymus 
also assents, (Comm. in Matt. 12.) According 
to them, one commits the sin against the Holy 
Ghost who asserts that the miracles performed 
by Christ through the aid of the Holy Ghost 
were done by the agency of an evil spirit. (2) 
The other is the opinion of Augustine. He 
is not indeed always consistent with himself in 
his views respecting the kind of sin which 
should be regarded as the sin against the Holy 
Ghost. But he makes the principal character 
of this sin to be the obstinate impenitence of the 
sinner till the close of his life, and from this 
circumstance he explains it, that this sin is not 
forgiven. 

2c2 



306 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



To one or the other of these explanations most 
of the theologians -of the Western church have 
attached themselves, at least in general. The 
reformers of the sixteenth century came out of 
the school of Augustine, and generally adopted 
his views on this subject. Hence the following 
description of this sin was the most common 
among the Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth, 
seventeenth, and a part of the eighteenth centu- 
ries — viz., it is committed when any one recog- 
nises the Christian doctrine as divine, and in- 
wardly approves it, but yet denies it against 
his own convictions, opposes and blasphemes 
it, and perseveres in this deliberate contempt of 
all the means of grace, through which the Holy 
Spirit acts upon his heart, even till the close of 
life. 

Against this view, however, many difficulties 
have been urged, (a) It is said that in the texts 
of scripture above cited the ordinary operations 
of the Spirit of God are not intended, but the 
extraordinary, (b) That every sin, persevered 
in until death, is followed by condemnation ; and 
that this cannot therefore be a distinguishing 
characteristic of the sin against the Holy Ghost. 
For these reasons other theologians prefer the 
opinion of Chrysostom and Hieronymus — e. g., 
most of the Arminian theologians, and, after 
them, Stackhouse, Tillotson, and other English 
divines. These again were followed by most 
of the German Lutheran theologians of the eigh- 
teenth century, after PfafF, Schubert, Baum- 
garten, and others, had assented to this view. 
For the opinions of the theologians of the Rom- 
ish church on this point, vide Mart. Gerbert, 
De peccato in Sp. S., S. Blasii, 1760 ; and Hirt, 
De logomachiis circa Doctrinam de Spiritu 
Sancto obviis, where the opinions of the Lu- 
theran theologians are carefully collected. Vide 
Ncesselt's "Biicherkenntniss" for an account 
of an almost innumerable multitude of other 
works on this subject — e. g., those of Feuerborn, 
Musaeus, Schubert, Zellner, Hauber, Flatt (a 
prize essay, 1770), Buchwitz, Semler (1768), 
&c. 

II. Scriptural Representation. 

The Pharisees and Scribes attributed the 
miracles which Jesus wrought to confirm and 
establish his divine mission, to the devil, with 
the malicious purpose of rendering Jesus sus- 
pected in the view of the people, upon whom 
his miracles had produced a great impression, 
as being a magician, standing in alliance with 
the devil. It was this wicked calumny which 
led Jesus to make tie ueclarati on respecting the 
unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost, according to the express informa- 
tion of Mark, c. iii. 30. The following remarks 
may serve to explain this declaration of Jesus : — 

(a) Bfawf^ta is any slander or calumny 



which aims to disgrace or dishonour any one, 
whether it be God or created beings, angels and 
men, 2 Pet. ii. 10, 11 ; Mark, vii. 22. In this 
passage it is used in the widest sense, and so 
includes both. (It is inaccurately rendered by 
Luther, in Mark, iii. 28, blasphemy against 
God.) Therefore Christ says, "All other sins, 
and even blasphemies (against God and men), 
may be forgiven to men (if they seek forgive- 
ness in the appointed way) ; but for that sin 
alone, which is committed by blasphemy against 
the Holy Ghost, is no forgiveness to be expect- 
ed. It is the most heinous of all sins. 

(&) The phrase Son of man is sometimes ap- 
plied to the Messiah, considered in his whole 
character (^a'^pco7toj) ; it is however borrowed 
from his inferior nature, and relates chiefly to 
his humanity. The contemporaries of Jesus 
were especially offended by the humiliation of 
the Son of man, which was so contradictory to 
their expectations respecting the Messiah, Matt. 
xi. 6; 1 Cor. i. 23. Blasphemy directed against 
the Messiah was indeed, in all cases, a great 
offence; but in the ignorant and misguided 
multitude it was by no means so great a sin as 
in those who led them astray ; and hence in 
their case there was hope of pardon. They 
were among those who knew not what they did, 
Luke, xxiii. 34. 

(c) The case was very different with the 
Pharisees ; they blasphemed against the Holy 
Ghost, since they knew that the Holy Ghost 
acted through Christ, but yet denied it, and cast 
contempt upon his agency. The support and 
guidance of the Son of man is constantly as- 
cribed by Christ and the apostles to the Holy 
Spirit. Vide Matt. iii. 16; John, iii. 34; Acts, 
x. 38. It is not, however, the personal dignity 
of the Holy Ghost, as God, which is here 
spoken of, nor does Christ design to say that a 
sin against one divine person is greater than 
against another, — for which no reason can be 
supposed ; nor would he intimate that the Holy 
Ghost was superior to himself and the Father; 
for, according to his instructions, they are equal 
in dignity; but he speaks only of the operations 
of the Holy Spirit, and of his manifestation, 
which was so plainly exhibited in Christ. For 
the work of God and the work of the devil are 
here opposed to each other, and in Mark, iii. 29, 
30, rtvevfia aytov and rtvevfia axd^taprov and in- 
stead of the phrase, to cast out devih by the spi- 
rit of God, which is found, Matt. xii. 28, we 
find the phrase, by the finger of God, used in 
Luke, xi. 20. The sin here described is there- 
fore called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
because it is committed against those divine 
operations which are especially ascribed to the 
Holy Ghost as his oeconomic work. But it 
does not follow that the personal dignity of the 
Holy Ghost is greater than that of the Father 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



307 



or the Son. The Pharisees, therefore, committed 
the sin against the Holy Ghost not only by ob- 
stinately denying, against their own convictions, 
the miracles which Jesus performed in proof of 
his divine mission, and which they knew in 
their hearts to be performed through divine 
agency, but by giving them out as imposture 
and the effect of an evil spirit, with whom Jesus 
stood in alliance, in order thus to render his 
doctrine suspicious. This, considering the cir- 
cumstances in which the Pharisees were, shew- 
ed a high degree of wickedness, and was actual 
blasphemy against God — a designed and deli- 
berate blasphemy, too, which they were by no 
means disposed to repent of or to retract. Here 
two questions arise — viz., 

(1) Can the sin against the Holy Ghost be still 
committed at the present time ? Those who adopt 
the opinion of Augustine commonly affirm that 
it can. But among those theologians who have 
explained these texts after the manner of Chry- 
sostom and Hieronymus, the opinions on this 
subject vary, (a) Some of them maintain the 
affirmative. They think that whoever denies 
the miracles of Christ, casts contempt upon 
them, or gives them out as deception, impos- 
ture, or magic, still commits this sin, although 
(as they sometimes cautiously add) no one can 
undertake to decide whether it has been commit- 
ted by another, (b) But the other side was taken 
long ago by some Arminian theologians, (e. g., 
by Limborch.) They maintained that only eye- 
witnesses of Christ's miracles, as the Pharisees 
were, could be guilty of this sin, because no 
others had equal advantages for attaining to a 
full and undoubting conviction of their certainty. 
Those in our times who pursue the general 
course of the Pharisees, deny and ridicule events 
respecting the historic truth and credibility of 
which they are in doubt, or which they suppose 
never to have taken place. Hence it is con- 
cluded that this sin can no more be committed, 
because miracles are no longer performed. So 
Pfaff reasoned, and after him many protestant 
theologians, (c) There is still, however, one 
case in which the same sin which was commit- 
ted by the Pharisees may be still committed — 
viz., where one is fully convinced of the historic 
truth of the miracles of Jesus, and that they were 
done through the divine power, and yet, in total 
opposition to his own convictions, and with the 
same malicious purpose which the Pharisees 
had, pronounces them to be imposture and de- 
ception, the effect of magic or other wicked arts. 
This would in reality be the same case with 
that of the Pharisees. For the circumstance of 
having seen the miracles oneself is of no special 
consequence, and it is enough if one be con- 
vinced of their truth. When the conviction of 
the truth of the miracles is equally strong in 
one who has not seen them and in one who has, 



the same degree of guilt would seem to be ne- 
cessarily involved in denying them. Such a 
case indeed will seldom occur, but the possibi- 
lity of it must be admitted. 

(2) Why does Christ affirm, that this sin cannot 
be forgiven ? and what does he mean by this decla- 
ration? The theologians who adopt Augustine's 
hypothesis, understand here a real impossibility ', 
in the proper and philosophical sense, and derive 
it from the nature of the sin itself, as being con- 
tinued to the end of life; respecting which vide 
supra. Those who follow the other hypothesis 
have different opinions on this subject. Some 
understand a real impossibility, but do not enter 
upon the question, why it is impossible. Others 
take the ground, that this language means only 
that this sin is forgiven with great difficulty. 
So most of the theologians of the Romish church 
who adopt this hypothesis; also many of the 
Arminian theologians and commentators ; like- 
wise Heumann, Pfaff, and other protestants. 
These again are divided in their opinions, since 
some suppose that Christ spoke conditionally, 
meaning that this sin could not be forgiven if it 
were not repented of; and others, that Christ here 
uses the language of feeling, which is accord- 
ingly to be understood hyperbolically, and not 
literally Vide Koppe, Quo sensu peccato in 
Spiritum Sanctum venia a Christo negata fue- 
rit; Gott. 1781. 

On this question we will give our own judg- 
ment. The words of Jesus are, ovx a^r t 6stac 
sit tbv aiwva — ovts iv ■tovtq> ?c> cuwvt, ovts sv 
la p.i'k'kov'ti (i. e., according to the usns loquendi 
of the Jews, neither here nor hereafter) ; JVo^oj 
itrtw aiavlov zpt'tjfo?, or, according to another 
reading, a^aprcaj, (he incurs the guilt of a sin 
never to be pardoned, and for which he must 
endure the pains of hell.) The meaning cannot 
be, that God cannot forgive such a sin. For 
one who has sinned in a manner ever so aggra- 
vated, may yet repent and reform, and then he 
surely receives forgiveness; and this is truly 
said respecting blasphemy against God of any 
other kind. It is obvious that Christ here speaks 
with feeling and righteous indignation ; this is 
proved by all his words; and on this account it 
is unwarrantable in us to give these terms an 
universal sense, and to apply them to every 
similar case. This Koppe has well shewn in 
the Essay before mentioned. But although 
Christ spoke with feeling, it does not follow 
that he went too far, or affirmed anything which 
is not in strict accordance with truth. For the 
feeling which Christ exhibits is never accom- 
panied either by error or sin. The case properly 
stands thus : (a) all experience shews that a 
man who has arrived at such a point of wicked- 
ness seldom comes to a knowledge of the truth 
or to repentance ; hence Paul says, with regard 
to such sinners, aH-vatov yap, x. t. \> ; Heb. vi. 



308 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



4 — 6. Vide other texts cited at the beginning 
of this section. (6) But Christ, as one who 
knows the heart, was most firmly convinced 
that those whom he addressed would never re- 
pent of that deliberate blasphemy, but would 
persevere in it to the end. The reason why he 
spoke so decidedly was, that he knew what was 
in man, and did not need that any one should 
teach him ; John, ii. 25 ; xvi. 30. In this way, 
the theories of Augustine and of Chrysostom 
somewhat agree on this point ; and we have also 
a plain reason why Christ speaks so decidedly 
in this case, while yet we cannot do so in simi- 
lar cases. 

SECTION LXXXV. 

OF THE STATE INTO WHICH MEN ARE BROUGHT BV 
THE COMMISSION OF SIN, AND THE DIFFERENT 
KINDS AND NAMES OF IT. 

1. The state of sinners in respect to their conduct 

and disposition. 

Those in whose hearts evil desires no more 
prevail, but rather virtuous feelings and a dis- 
position inclined to moral good, are called up- 
right, virtuous, (probos, honestos ,•) but those 
who are thus, out of regard to God — 1. e., from 
obedience to the known will and command of 
God, and from thankful love to him — are called 
pious (pios), religious; although this distinction 
is not always observed in common discourse. 
The latter is the state which we are required 
to possess by the precepts of Christianity. A 
short summary of Christian doctrine on this 
point is contained in the first epistle of John. 
The Bible recognises no other virtue or holi- 
ness than that which springs from religious 
motives ; religious virtue, we are there taught, 
is the only virtue which has true worth in 
the sight of God ; and this we are taught even 
in the Old Testament. Those who possess 
this religious virtue are there called D^nx, o^V_, 
Di"Ppn, Di"}E^j Sixcuoi, aytoc, Ttpaftj, si5(jsj3ftj, bov%oi 
&cov, x. if. "k. ; one of the opposite character is 
called atf£]3»j5, aStxoj, x. r. %. But one who acts 
according to his corrupt desires, and does so ha- 
bitually, is called in scripture the servant or slave 
of sin ; it is said of him that he lives to sin, he 
serves it, he obeys it, he is sold under sin, and it 
rules over him. Vide Ps. xix. 14; Rom. vi. 1, 

2, 6, 12, 16, 20; vii. 14, 24 ; xiv. 24; John, viii. 
34, seq. ; 2 Pet. ii. 19. He only who is placed 
in a state in which he can govern his desires, 
and subject his appetites to reason enlightened 
by divine instruction, is zfree man, (John, viii. 
34 ;) whoever cannot do this is a slave of sin. 

The state of all who are devoted to sin is not, 
however, alike. Every vicious man is, in his 
own way, a servant of sin ; but all are not so in 
the same way. Three principal classes may be 



in general here distinguished, (a) Some adoptf 
the appearance of virtue and piety ; they give a 
saintly appearance even to their crimes, in order 
to obtain the advantages connected with good- 
ness. These are hypocrites, and their fault is 
called vnoxpiGis, -pi?, a?5, nnnn ; opposite to which 
are rips, ruir*?, kk-fezia, truth, sincerity. This is 
one of the most shameful, aggravated, and dan- 
gerous crimes — the hatefulness and destructive- 
ness of which are more fully considered in the 
department of Morals. Cf. Matt. vi. and xxiii. ; 
Luke, xi. 37—54; 2 Tim. iii. 5. (b) Others 
have no hesitation in acting out before the world 
the ungodly desires and purposes of their hearts. 
Such are called ungodly, improbi, abvxot,, doit's, 
Dij?Bh, because they do not fear nor regard God 
or his law ; opposite to these are those who fear 
God — i. e., act with reverential regard to his 
commands, (c) Those sinful and godless men 
who, by long custom in sinning, have esta- 
blished a fixed habit of it, are called vicious, 
wicked, sceleratos. Cf. s. 82, II., ad finem. 

II. The state of sinners in respect to the conse- 
quences which sin involves. 

The different kinds of sinners noticed above 
are all unhappy, and in the judgment of God 
deserving of punishment. The feeling of their 
danger and misery is not, however, alike with 
them all ; and some live even in entire insensi- 
bility. In this observation we have the ground 
of the divisions of the various states which have 
been commonly made by theologians, and which 
are founded in experience; though the passage 
from one to the other of these states is very 
easy. 

(1) Some men very plainly see the unlawful- 
ness of their actions, and the evil consequences 
springing from them; they often form the pur- 
pose of renouncing sin and living better ; but the 
power of the evil inclinations which have ob- 
tained the mastery over them is so strong, 
that they allow themselves to be continually 
hurried away into sin. Such are in constant 
restlessness, fear, and anguish, on account of 
their sins ; and their state is denominated by the- 
ologians, in comformity with scriptural phrase- 
ology, conditionem sive statum servilem or servi- 
tutis, a state of slavery ; and this is taken from 
John, viii. 34 ; Romans, vi. 20, and chap. vii. 
Men in this state are like slaves, who, at least 
sometimes, if not always, wish to be free, and 
make attempts for their own deliverance, and 
yet always remain slaves. 

(2) Others lead a sinful life, without having 
an earnest desire to free themselves from the 
dominion of sin. They pay no regard to their 
unlawful actions, and have no scruples about 
them, either from ignorance or levity, or because 
they hope to remain unpunished, and from many 
other reasons, often those which are in the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



309 



highest degree foolish. This is called the state 
of security — i. e., freedom from care, like the 
Latin securus; — status securitatis, or libertatis 
earnalis, because those who are in it feel free to 
follow their sinful appetites, (tfap|.) This state 
is far more dangerous than the preceding one ; 
and with such sinners reformation is far more 
difficult. Cf. Matt. xxiv. 33; Ephes. iv. 17— 
19; Jude, ver. 4, seq. The state of such is 
therefore compared with that of the sleeping or 
of the dead, Ephes. v. 14. They live for sin, 
but are dead to goodness ; while it ought to be 
the reverse. 

Note. — Theologians distinguish between this 
state and that of spiritual liberty or security. 
They give the latter name to the state of the 
pious, the whole disposition of whose heart is 
so renovated as to be conformed to the precepts 
of Christianity, who by divine assistance control 
their evil desires, and are sure of the pardon of 
their sins. Vide John, viii. 36 ; Rom. v. 1 ; vi. 
18. For true spiritual freedom consists in being 
free from the power and dominion of sin, and 
also from its punishment; and we owe both to 
Christ. These are the blessed godly ones (Gott- 
seligen, in 'he proper sense of the term) — i. e., 
those who are blessed in the conviction which 
they feel of the forgiveness of God, who inter- 
nally and from the heart enjoy a happiness in 
which they cannot be disturbed even by out- 
ward calamities. Happy and unhappy (selig 
and unselig) are terms which apply properly to 
the internal state — the well or ill-being of the 
soul ; fortunate and Unfortunate, (gliicklich and 
unglilcklich,) more to the external state. 

(3) Others still come into a state of hardness 
or obduracy. This state exists when any one 
remains insensible and indifferent under the 
most powerful motives to repentance, so that 
they cease to make any impression on him. It 
springs (a) from the frequent repetition of sin, 
and from the settled habit of sinning. This 
produces a gradual diminution of the power of 
the motives to abandon sin, and at length an 
entire cessation of their efficacy. (5) But those 
are in peculiar danger of coming into this state 
who have had placed before them the most 
urgent and moving inducements to religion and 
virtue, but have yet neglected and despised them 
all. It is in the very nature of the human soul 
that these motives, at each repetition of sin, lose 
something of their energy, and that at length an 
entire indifference must ensue, rendering the 
conversion of one who has brought himself into 
such a state morally impossible. This state is 
called by theologians, statum indurationis per- 
fectum. It is described by Paul, Heb. vi. 4, — 
6, and Is. vi. 10, " Who have eyes, but see not ; 
ears, but hear not" — i. e., who are deaf and in- 
sensible to all the motives to holiness which are 
held before them, and which they clearly under- 



stand, and who therefore cannot be healed — i. e., 
renovated and made happy. Cf. John, xii. 40 ; 
Acts, xxviii. 26, 27; 2 Cor. iv. 4; iii. 14; also 
Exod. vii. 13. 

The words and phrases used in the Bible to 
denote this state are, (1) -o3, fiapvvso^cu, j8apvj. 
These words are literally employed to signify 
what is heavy and inactive ; they are then used 
with reference to the members of the body and 
the organs of sense, as heavy tongues, hands, 
ears, denoting their inactivity, and the difficulty 
of their use; Zech. vii. 11; Gen. xlviii. 10; 
Matt. xxvi. 43 ; lastly, they are appl'ed to the 
soul, indicating stupidity of the understanding, 
and slowness of belief ; 1 Sam. vi. 6; 2 Chron. 
xxv. 19; sometimes also the qualities of the 
will, and sometimes those of the understanding 
and will both, — an inertness of soul, and an in- 
capacity to the right use of its essential powers. 
(2) nnp, literally, hard; Hiphil, mr^n, 6x%r]pvveLv i 
t3xh7]pvve6$cu' hence the term ax%rjpoxap8ia, from 
which obduratio is taken. The state of mind 
now under consideration is often indicated by 
this 6x%r]pvv£6^tac, as Heb. iii. 8, 15, seq. ; Rom. 
ii. 5 ; and by r\fp in the Old Testament, Exodus, 
vii. 3 ; Ezek. iii. 7. (3) The words which ori- 
ginally signify fat, denote also this state of in- 
sensibility and unfeelingness — e. g., ]cu ; n, pin- 
gue fieri, rta%vvs6$cu, Is. vi. 10, and Matt. xiii. 
15; as likewise the Latin pinguis is synony- 
mous with hebes, stupidus, tardus — e. g., inge- 
nium pingue is the same as dull and obtuse. 
The fat of the body of animals is without sensa- 
tion ; and this observation was much more fa- 
miliar to nations offering sacrifices, and so 
having much to do with the slaughter of ani- 
mals, than to us ; and hence this phraseology 
was so current among them. (4) The words 
which indicate deep sleep, in which all external 
sensation ceases ; xatdw%L$, Rom. xi. 8, an- 
swering in the LXX. to the Hebrew nc-nn. (5) 
One of the most common words used in the 
New Testament on this subject is rtcopcotftj, and 
rtcapoco, rttopovG^ai — e. g., Rom. xi. 7, 25 ; 2 Cor. 
iii. 15 ; Mark, vi. 52, xap8ua riertu>pcc/.isv/]. This 
word is properly taken from rtwpo?, which means, 
having a hard, indurated skin, (as in the hands 
of workmen;) callous, without feeling; and so 
7ttopco<5t? figuratively denotes, according to Hesy- 
chius, the same as tj amw^sia, and is synony- 
mous with ax%.r;poxap8ict. All these words 
which signify hardheartedness are sometimes 
used in reference to the understanding, (called 
aS,) sometimes in reference to the will, and 
often with reference to both. A soft heart is, 
accordingly, susceptibility for reasons and con- 
viction, the open ear of the soul. A hard heart 
is the opposite, and indicates a want of know- 
ledge and capacity — the remiss use of them, 
inactivity. 

With regard to this status indurationis there 



310 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



has been a great difficulty, which may be stated 
as follows: — From what has been already said, 
it appears that when a man comes into this 
state, he alone is to blame, and has all the 
guilt of it resting upon himself. This is taught 
in the scriptures in many of the passages al- 
ready cited. Still there are other texts of scrip- 
ture in which God seems to be made the author 
of this obduracy of men, and of sin in general, 
and its consequences — e. g., Exod. iv. 21, "I 
will harden Pharaoh's heart:" xiv. 17, seq. ; Is. 
Ixiii. 17; Deut. ii. 30; Josh. xi. 20; Ezek. xx. 
25 ; and in the New Testament, John, xii. 40, 
tsivtyXcoxtv 6q>^ta%uov^ avt^v xai rtirtJdpidxs xap- 
8lav. Rom. ix. 18, also i. 24. These and simi- 
lar texts were explained by the severe particu- 
larists of the reformed church, also by the Jan- 
senists and many of the stricter Thomists of the 
Romish church, to mean, that God is the effi- 
cient cause of these effects; that from such men 
he withdraws or withholds, for some reason to 
us inscrutable, a certain supernatural or irre- 
sistible grace, without which they cannot be- 
come holy or happy; and that he does this by 
his unconditional decree. This interpretation 
resulted from ignorance of the usas loquendi of 
the sacred writers. Let the student consider the 
following particulars — viz., 

(a) Even in modern languages we often use 
expressions by which we ascribe to an indivi- 
dual the remote consequences of his actions, 
even when he did not design to produce these 
consequences, and perhaps employed all the 
means in his power to guard against them — e. 
g., after I have often exhorted some one to re- 
pent, and all without effect, except that, in di- 
rect opposition to my intentions, he becomes, 
through my repeated warnings, only the more 
unfeeling, I then say, I have preached him deaf, 
I have made him harder and more wicked by my 
efforts. Thus, Isa. vi. 10, "Make hard this 
people (by preaching), and let their ears be 
deaf." Vide Michaelis' note on Exod. iv. 21. 
We speak in the same way when our good pur- 
poses have miscarried. But, 

(5) In the ancient, and especially the Orien- 
tal languages, this mode of speech is far more 
current than in modern languages. It is alto- 
gether appropriate to the whole manner of 
thinking and speaking in the ancient world ; 
but it has by degrees become foreign to the sci- 
entific dialect of the modern world, although it 
has not wholly fallen into disuse in common 
life. Hence it often has a strange appearance 
to the learned, while to the unlearned it sounds 
more natural. The simplicity of that early age 
of the world often ascribes everything which 
takes place under the inspection and special 
guidance of Providence, whether it be good or 
evil, directly to God himself, and regards him 
as the author and efficient cause of every event 



and of its consequences, because nothing takes 
place without his permission and foreknow- 
ledge. Vide s. 58, II. 1, and especially s. 70, 
note, ad finem. Thus, God performs miracles 
in order to induce Pharaoh to let Israel go; 
Pharaoh does not comply ; and the oftener the 
miracles are repeated, the more hard-hearted 
does he become. Now it is said that God hard- 
ened Pharaoh, rendered him unfeeling, and even 
by those very means which should have render- 
ed him feeling; and at the same time, the cala- 
mity which now befah him is regarded as a pu- 
nishment which God inflicts upon him. This 
last opinion plainly shews that it was not the 
belief that God acted irresistibly upon Pharaoh ; 
for in that case how could he be punished? 
This language is then to be understood in a 
manner perfectly consistent with the personal 
guilt of Pharaoh. Cf. Rom. i. 26; ix. 17; 2 
Thess. ii. 11. In the same way, the good ac 
tions of men are ascribed to God ; and from the 
misunderstanding of the texts in which this is 
done originated the doctrine respecting superna- 
tural and irresistible grace, as from the misun-' 
derstanding of the other, the doctrine ofjudicia, 
hardness. The mode of thinking and speaking 
now referred to is found also among the Greeks, 
and indeed in all ancient writings ; it occurs in 
Homer as well as in the Bible, and also in the 
Arabic writers. In Homer it is said that the 
Deity infuses good and evil into the heart, (i/x.- 
j3a%"k£i, xapbiy ;) that he inspires wisdom and 
fully, (Odyss. xxiii. 11, seq.;) that he infatu- 
ates and deceives men, deprives them of their 
reason, so that they may act foolishly, deludes 
their senses, Zzve, ^pf'va? nWo, II. ix. 377, xix. 
137;) tempts them to evil, (Odyss. xxiii. 222;) 
and is the cause of the wickedness of men. 
For he does- everything. U. xix. 87, 90, seq. ; 
Odyss. xvi. 280, 297, 298; II. ix. 632, seq. 

AWrjxrov re kukov ts 
Qvfjov ei'tar/jSfo-ai Ssoi Seaav. . . 

Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath 
not done it? Amos, iii. 6. 

Note. — The text, Rom. ix. 18, ov §£%si e-kssl, 
ov Sh ^ixat 6x"krjpvv£i means, according to many, 
he treats hardly, like Job, xxxix. 16, (drtoffx?^- 
pvvn tixva;) and the principal reason for this 
is, the contrast of ttetlv. This interpretation, 
however, does not agree with ver. 19 ; and the 
whole passage alludes too plainly to the pas- 
sage in Exodus respecting Pharaoh to admit of 
this interpretation. This language is therefore 
to be understood here also in the common sense, 
and the verse may be thus explained — viz., 
« The good and the evil which befal men de- 
pend alike upon the divine will. Some (who 
are pleasing to him, as his children) he causes 
to prosper ; others he hardens — i. e., he suffers 
them to feel the consequences of their obstinacy* 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



311 



insensibility, and indifference to his oft-repeated 
commands ; as in the case of Pharaoh, ver. 17." 
The same thing which is called <sx%r t pvv£tv here, 
is called EvSa'iao&at opy^v, ver. 22. Vide Rahn, 
ad loc. Rom. ix. 17—23 ; Hala?, 1789. 

SECTION LXXXVI. 

WHAT PUNISHMENT IS, AND WHAT IS THE OBJECT 
OF IT ; HOW THE DIVINE PUNISHMENTS ARE 
NAMED IN THE BIBLE, AND WHAT WE ARE 
THERE TAUGHT RESPECTING THEIR NATURE ; 
ALSO THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF THE DIVINE 
PUNISHMENTS. 

In our treatment of this whole subject we 
must proceed on the ground of what has been 
already said on the divine laws and punish- 
ments in the discussion of the subject of divine 
justice, s. 30, 31. Supposing the student al- 
ready acquainted with these, we proceed to 
make some additional observations, and a more 
immediate application of what has been already 
said. 

I. V> r hat is Punishment, and what is its object ? 

"Punishment is an evil (suffering, something 
awakening unpleasant sensations) which the 
superior inflicts upon those placed under him, 
on account of some trespass, (the theologian 
calls it sin;) and this, for the sake of maintain- 
ing the authority of his laws for the good of his 
subjects, or to promote their improvement and 
welfare." This is the general notion of pu- 
nishment, which is also to be applied to the di- 
vine judgments, though with a careful separa- 
tion of every human imperfection. The follow- 
ing points need to be carefully considered : — 

(1) The one who punishes another must in 
all cases be the supreme magistrate, whether it 
be God or man. For no one has the right to 
punish who has not the right to give laws, and 
this is the peculiar province of the supreme ma- 
gistrate. Vide s. 73, I. All punishments there- 
fore depend upon the law, and one can inflict 
punishment only upon those over whom he pos- 
sesses the power of legislation. Consequently 
the right of punishment belongs to God. 

(2) In order to be punished, one must be sub- 
ject to a law, and have broken it, and in such a 
way, too, that his transgression can be imputed 
to him. And this may be when he has either 
committed unlawful actions himself, or contri- 
buted to those of others. But it is only when 
the trespass can thus be imputed to a person that 
punishment can be inflicted upon him. 

(3) The objects of punishment are, all unlaw- 
ful actions. In human judicatories the external 
actions only are the objects of punishment; be- 
cause the knowledge o f men extends no further 
than these ; but at the \>ar of God not only these 



but also internal actions, evil thoughts, designs, 
and desires, are liable to punishment. Vide s. 
82, ad finem. 

(4) The guilt of a person has, therefore, its 
ground in his relation to the law transgressed 
by him, and to its author. On account of this 
relation he deserves the punishment which is 
threatened against transgressors — i. e., he must 
take upon himself the evil connected with the 
transgression of the law. The guilty person 
{qui culpam sustinet) is called in the scriptures 
byiCkz-tr^, 6 f^cov a/xaptiav, Xvo%o$ voixov, v7to8txos 
£•£9, rixvov dpyrj — one who must give account, 
&c. Vide Morus, p. 110, s. 4, note 1. All men 
are described in the Bible as being such ; and 
the sacred writers insist upon it with great ear- 
nestness, that men should look upon themselves 
as subject to the penalty of the law, as the only 
way for them to become disposed to accept of 
the means of improvement offered to them, and 
to comply with the prescribed conditions. Vide 
s. 80. 

(5) The last end of punishments. This in 
general may be best stated as follows : they 
aim at the welfare and reformation of the sub- 
ject; or it is their object to support the autho- 
rity of the law for the welfare and improvement 
of those placed under it. This subject is treat- 
ed more at large in s. 31, II. 2, where the opi- 
nion of Michaelis, that the only object of pu- 
nishment is to deter men from sin is further con- 
sidered. The imperfections which cleave to 
human punishments must necessarily be sepa- 
rated from divine; nor should human punish- 
ments ever be made the standard by which 
divine punishments are to be judged of. 

Note. — Some modern philosophers have as- 
serted that God cannot punish, and that divine 
punishments ought never to be spoken of, be- 
cause what are so called are to be regarded as 
benefits, and have benevolent ends and results. 
But merely because punishments tend to pro- 
mote the good of men, and are designed to se- 
cure the most benevolent results, they do not 
cease to be evils, and become the same with 
what are ordinarily denominated benefits. The 
pain which is felt in sickness is beneficial ; it 
makes one mindful in time of danger, leads to 
caution, and so is often the means of preserving 
life; still it is an evil which we endeavour to 
avoid, and the approach of which we fear. 
Thus it is with punishments. And it is in the 
highest degree injurious to undertake to oblite- 
rate from the minds of the great multitude of 
unconverted men the fear of divine punishment. 
Too great caution cannot be used against that 
miscalled philosophy which does this; for 
wherever it has found entrance, either in an- 
cient or modern times, it ha"s always destroyed 
religion, morality, and civil order. Vide s. 156 



312 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



H. Scriptural names of Divine Punishments, and 
the nature of these punishments. 

(1) Many of these names bear the impress 
af the simplicity of the popular phraseology of 
the earliest times. They are sometimes derived 
from injured and irritated rulers, who give free 
scope to their anger, and take revenge for the 
injury done them; sometimes from judges, who 
hold judgment over the guilty, pronounce sen- 
tence upon them, and execute it. It would be 
a great mistake, however, for any one to charge 
the scriptural writers with entertaining gross 
anthropomorphic ideas on this subject merely 
because they sometimes use expressions of this 
nature. They only retained the common terms 
in use among men, while they always under- 
stood them in a refined and elevated sense. It 
is not with them, as in Homer, where even the 
gods fear that Jupiter, when he is enraged, will 
punish the innocent and guilty alike, II. xv. 
137. Nothing like this is taught in the scrip- 
tures. That the sacred writers connected ideas 
worthy of God with those popular expressions 
which they made use of is evident from the New 
Testament, in which, notwithstanding the most 
just conceptions of the divine nature are un- 
questionably contained, still the terms in com- 
mon use with regard to the Divine Being, such 
as the revenge, the oath, the curse of God, often ap- 
pear. The same is true in the Old Testament, 
in the books of Moses and in the Psalms. 

Expressions like these, it may also be said, 
make a far stronger impression upon the uncul- 
tivated mass of mankind, depending as they do 
upon their senses, than terms more abstract; 
they take firmer hold upon them, and sink 
deeper and more easily into their hearts, than 
terms which represent the thing less plainly to 
the senses. For this reason, terms of this na- 
ture are employed by the sacred writers, espe- 
cially when they have to do with men of the 
character now described ; they alternate, how- 
ever, such expressions with others ; and in this 
we ought to imitate them. 

The following are among the names which 
they employ — viz., rp, jinn, ncn, 6py^, §vpo$, 
Psalm vii. 12; Romans, v. 9, coll. s. 31, ad 
init. ; m<ip, Deut. i. 27; Dpj, exStxyw, Isaiah, 
lxiii. 4 ; Luke, xxi. 22. The opposites of these 
are the love, the favour, the friendship of God, 
^PD, ]n, ayu7tr], tteos, %dpi$, x. t 1 . "k. With refer- 
ence to announcing or threatening the divine 
punishments, the sacred writers frequently em- 
ploy words which literally mean to rebuke, in- 
crepare, which the irritated man commonly 
does ; especially, njjii, rnjn, 'iTtiii^d^, ertrtifiia, 
Jade, 9, seq. Again: the words which signify 
cursing, imprecation, are used to denote the 
same thing as nSSp, xa-tdpa, iTW, &c, Deut. ix. 
26, seq. ; Gal. iii. 20. Opposite to this is rma, 



iv^oyla, ivijoydv, Deut. xxviii. 15 ; Gal. iii. 13. 
As vocabula media (used with reference either 
to benefits or punishments) all the nomina judi- 
cii and verba judicandi are often employed; 
more frequently, however, with reference to di- 
vine punishments, as toc^D, JH, ei, xptcij, xpi/xa, 
xatdxpipa, Gal. v. 10; Rom. ii. 3. The words, 
too, which designate a judicial declaration, are 
often employed to denote threatenings and pu- 
nishments ; so even -at, ?t6yoj, tf/j-a ®sov. 
Among the vocabula media belong also all the 
verba intuendi and aspiciendi, such as ntn, imi- 
htw, and especially np3, to which the word 
£7tt,csx£7tT?sG§at answers in the New Testament, 
and in the Vulgate, visitare; in the good sense, 
to behold any one with a cheerful face, is to shew 
him kindness or favour — e. g., Psalm viii. 5; 
Luke, i. 68, 78; in the bad sense, to behold any 
one with an angry face, is to punish him ; hence 
mp? and £7ttoxo7tri signify often punishment — 
e. g., Isaiah, x. 3 ; 1 Peter, ii. 12. In the Old 
and New Testament the terms -ipir, w, rcai- 
&£V£iv, castigare, and 7tcu§Eta, are used to denote 
the fatherly discipline and chastisement of God, 
which is the proper idea to be entertained of the 
divine punishments, and the ends for which they 
are inflicted. Cf. s. 31, II. Finally, all the 
Hebrew words which properly signify sin and 
guilt are often used to denote punishment — e. g., 
jfi]?, nNEn, ei. Vide s. 73, II. 2, ad finem ; ex- 
actly as, in Homer, "A-tn signifies crime, and 
also its guilt and punishment, II. xix. 91. Cf. 
136, 137. 

Atoj Svyarrip "Arrj r; 7rdvraj ddrat. 

— Me, the daughter of Jupiter, who brings every 
one into guilt. Cf. II. ix. 50, seq., and s. 30, 31. 
Note. — Some modern philosophers and theo- 
logians object to the phrase, the anger of God; 
and many young religious teachers carefully 
avoid it, and pronounce their older brethren 
who still employ it very unenlightened. But 
they do this without any good reason. Anger, 
in general, is the expression of strong disappro- 
bation. In this men indeed are liable to err; 
they may express their disapprobation with re- 
gard to things which do not deserve it, or more 
strongly than is proper, and often quite unjusti- 
fiably ; their anger, therefore, may be, and often 
is, wrong and sinful. But it is by no means 
necessary that anger should be so ; there may 
be a righteous anger, as is often said in common 
life, when one expresses his deep and lively 
displeasure in such a way as to be perfectly 
conformable to the subject, the end, and the cir- 
cumstances. Nor can a good moral being ex- 
ist, or even be conceived to exist, without such 
anger. God, as the most perfect and holy moral 
being, has certainly the greatest displeasure 
against sin; and as he is the supreme moral go- 
vernor of the world, he expresses it in a very 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



313 



impressive manner. He therefore is said to 
burn with anger, but his anger is always just. 

(2) The divine judgments are inflicted, ac- 
cording to the Bible, (a) in the present life; (b) 
by death (although this was strictly a punish- 
ment for sin only in the case of the first man, 
and with regard to all others is only a conse- 
quence of the sin of Adam ; vide s. 76, III. and 
s. 80, ad finem); (c) after death. All these pu- 
nishments, according to the Bible, stand con- 
nected with the sin of our first parents. For 
from that arose the moral corruption which is 
communicated to all mankind. This is the 
source of actual sins, and these bring punish- 
ment in their train. Vide s. 76, seq. From this 
evil the second Head of our race has freed us. 

That the representations given in the Bible 
respecting the divine punishments and their end 
agree perfectly with what sound reason recog- 
nises on this subject is very evident from the 
description it contains of the nature of these 
punishments. They are (a) always just and 
proper ; vide the texts quoted s. 31 ; moreover, 
Rom. ii. 2, xpi/j.a ®sov aatt xat ofcr^tiw. Vide 
also those texts which speak of the drfpoctorto- 
Ttfj-fyia ®sov. (j8) They have the welfare of men 
for their object. This is the last end for which 
they are inflicted ; (vide the texts cited ;) and if 
this object is not attained with any particular 
offender, he himself is alone in fault; and his 
punishment then serves for the good of others, 
who learn wisdom from his example, (y) They 
are certain, and will be inevitably inflicted ; they 
are not mere empty threats ; no one will be able 
to escape. Vide Rom. ii. 3, coll. Heb. xii. 25, 
and especially Heb. iv. 12, 13. This follows 
from the divine veracity; these punishments 
must be maintained in order to uphold the au- 
thority of the Divine Being, and to prevent an 
universal carelessness and indifference about 
sin. (S) The divine punishments are also de- 
scribed as terrible ; as in these expressions : Our 
God is a consuming fire ; it is a terrible thing to 
fall into his hands, &c. Heb. x. 30, 31 ; xii. 29. 
For in order that these punishments may attain 
their end, they must be sufficiently severe to 
terrify the transgressor, and must meet him 
in the point where he can be most strongly 
affected. 

III. Divisions of Punishments. 

(1) A very ancient division of punishments 
is into poenam damni and sensus, in reference to 
the evil itself which is inflicted on any one by 
punishment, (a) By punishment, a certain 
good is withdrawn. The judgments of men 
respecting their true welfare and their real inte- 
rests are very diverse; and consequently the 
withdrawal of their supposed advantages is va- 
riously estimated and felt. To one person, 
riches appear a great advantage ; to another, 
40 



not; and so while the former will regard the 
loss of them as the greatest evil, the latter *vill 
not suffer in the least from their loss. It is not 
here, then, of so much consequence, whethei % 
the advantages are real or only apparent, as in 
what estimation they are held by him from 
whom they are withdrawn. This withdraw- 
ment now is called poena damni, or sometimes 
poena negativa. (b) When, in addition to this, 
positively unpleasant feelings are caused and 
pains inflicted, this is called^ce?2a sensus. These 
two parts of punishment are commonly con- 
nected. These unpleasant sensations have their 
proper seat, either in the body, and are commu- 
nicated through the senses to the soul, or they 
are confined to the soul, and have their origin 
there. The latter are felt the most keenly, and 
are the most dreadful. 

(2) In respect to the connexion of punishment 
with crime, punishments are divided into natu- 
ral, and positive or arbitrary. The former are 
such as result from the internal nature of mo- 
rally bad actions themselves ; the latter are 
such as stand in no natural and necessary con- 
nexion with wicked actions, but which are con- 
nected with them merely by the good pleasure 
(arbitrium) of the lawgiver. These two kinds 
of punishment have been already explained, s. 
31, as well as the doctrine respecting the natu- 
ral and positive laws of God, s. 30. 

In this place we shall add a few remarks re- 
specting the natural punishments inflicted by 
God upon men, especially in this life; in the 
following section we shall farther discuss the 
subject of positive punishments. 

There has been some dispute among philoso- 
phers (into which we do not mean to enter fully 
now) whether the natural evil consequences of 
sin ought to be called punishments; and the 
propriety of this is by some denied. Judging 
from the common conceptions on this subject, 
and the common phraseology founded on these, 
there can be no doubt but that we may and 
ought to consider the evil consequences result- 
ing from the transgression of the divine com- 
mandments as punishment. So we say, for ex- 
ample, with respect to a liar, in whom at length 
no one places any confidence, or with respect to 
the voluptuary or drunkard, who brings infamy 
and disease upon himself, and in all such cases 
that sin punishes itself. Again, if the leges na* 
turales are properly called laws, (and whatever 
is true of law in any case is true of them,) how 
can it be doubted whether the consequences re- 
sulting from the transgression of these laws are 
properly denominated punishments ? 

But these natural punishments may be distil 
guished into two kinds : — 

(«) Such as are the necessary and inevitable 
evil consequences of the actions themselves, and 
which would result equally from these actions* 
2D 



314 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



were they not forbidden, and were the actions, 
therefore, not sins. They are called physical 
punishments. Among these are all the sick- 
er nesses and pains which arise from intemper- 
ance of every kind ; the poverty which comes 
from idleness; the grief, sorrow, and shame, 
which are the results of a dissipated life ; &c. 
It is in order to guard against the necessary evil 
consequences of sin, and so to diminish them, 
that the divine law is given ; and in this way it 
is, that what were before mere evils now become 
sins. Vide s. 73, I. 

(b) Punishments which result from the rela- 
tion of human actions to the law, or which have 
respect to the moral character of men. These 
are called moral punishments. These moral 
consequences of sin fall principally and most 
heavily upon the soul. Hence they are also 
called spiritual punishments. Among these are, 
e. g., the reproaches of conscience, telling us 
that we have violated the law of God, rendered 
ourselves unworthy of his favour, and disquali- 
fied for his blessings; also restlessness of soul, 
and fear of punishment, from the consciousness 
of guilt or ill-desert — the fear of God. Rom. 
iii. 19, 23 ; 1 John, i. 8, seq. ; iii. 14, seq. These 
are the most fearful and terrible of all punish- 
ments. 

This distinction between the different kinds 
of natural punishment is very important, espe- 
cially in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. 
Vide s. Ill, II. From thence it appears, 

(a) That the natural and physical evil conse- 
quences of certain wicked actions cannot wholly 
cease, even after pardon has been bestowed upon 
men, and they have repented, or after they have 
appropriated the merits of Christ. For we have 
no right to suppose that God will remove, in a 
miraculous manner, the necessary physical con- 
sequences of sinful actions. From experience 
we see that God does not do this in the present 
life. E. g., if any one has brought upon him- 
self, by his excesses, prolonged sickness or po- 
verty, he will not become at once well in body 
and estate merely by reforming his courses ; but 
he must continue to feel the necessary conse- 
quences of his errors and crimes, just as the con- 
sequences of the sin of Adam — death and other 
temporal calamities — continue to be felt by all 
his posterity, even by those who are renewed 
and pardoned. Vide Rom. viii. 10, 18 — 23. 
Nor does the Bible anywhere teach us, that in 
some miraculous way God will, even in the fu- 
ture life, remove all the natural and lasting con- 
sequences of actions ; it is therefore highly pro- 
bable that some portion of these consequences 
will continue even hereafter. But these natural- 
ly evil consequences, (as well those which are 
temporal as those which continue in the future 
life,) from which we are not entirely freed by 
the death of Christ, are yet mitigated, and lose 



the terror of punishment, to those who are par- 
doned and sanctified. This experience in the 
present life teaches us, and the holy scriptures 
assure of the same. Vide Rom. viii. 1, and v. 1, 
3 — 10. But the poznae naturales spirituales cease 
entirely with the renewed. Hence, 

(jb) The principal evils from which man is* 
freed in this and the future life, when he is par- 
doned and renewed, are, the moral consequences 
of sin ; and it is because the believer is freed 
from these, that even the natural consequences 
of sin are mitigated to him and lose the terror of 
punishment. The renewed man will never in- 
deed forget the sins which he has once commit- 
ted ; he will condemn them, and mourn over 
them ; but, as he is sure of pardon, his disquiet 
respecting them, his fear of God as a judge, and 
the reproaches of his conscience, will either at 
once or by slow degrees entirely cease ; peace of 
soul will be restored, together with a lively and 
joyful feeling of his present happy state, in 
comparison with his former unhappy condition. 
This is what the scriptures mean by the peace of 
God in the heart of the man whose sins are for- 
given. Vide the texts before cited from Rom. 
v. and viii. 

SECTION LXXXVII. 

SOME REMARKS ON " POSITIVE" DIVINE 
PUNISHMENTS. 

In addition to what we have already said on 
this subject, in stating the doctrine of divine 
justice, s. 31, we add here the following re- 
marks : — 

(1) The term arbitrary punishments (pccnse 
arbitrarise) seems to be somewhat inconvenient, 
and to be liable to be misunderstood ; it is for 
this reason objected to by very many modern 
writers, e. g., Steinbart, Syst. s. 130; Eberhard, 
Apologie d. Sokr. th. i. ; and the author of the 
" Apologie der Vernunft." And if the term ar- 
bitrary must be understood to denote a blind 
caprice, in which no regard is paid to rectitude 
and propriety, and to the nature of the offence, 
it could never, without blasphemy, be predicated 
of the punishments inflicted by God. But no 
advocate of the arbitrariness of God in the pu- 
nishments he inflicts has ever understood it in 
this sense; for it cannot be supposed that even 
a man of common understanding and goodness 
would punish in such a manner. These evils, 
which are called positive punishments, are not, 
indeed, founded in the internal nature of the for- 
bidden actions themselves ; they are not the im- 
mediate natural consequences of these actions; 
but they are added to, and conjoined with, the 
natural consequences of sin, by the special ap- 
pointment of the legislator; and it is for this 
reason that they are called arbitrarise. They arp 
mala ex arbitrio — i. e., libero Dei (judicis as 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 



315 



domini) consilio sive instUuto extrinsecus immissa. 
But they are always determined by the rules of 
Supreme Wisdom and goodness, and have all 
the qualities of the other divine operations. 
They are moreover resorted to by God, in cases 
where his object cannot be attained by merely 
natural punishments. We should not, then, be 
over-scrupulous about the use of this term, for 
when we hear it said that God, the All-wise and 
just, inflicts arbitrary punishments, the associ- 
ated idea of blind caprice, acting without cause 
or reason, falls away at once and of itself. The 
same is true of this term, as of the expression, 
the anger of God. Vide s. 86. The arbiirium 
of God is always w r ise, and never a blind caprice, 
as it often is with men, especially with passion- 
ate rulers and magistrates. In case this term 
were rejected, we might substitute the phrase 
free punishments. 

(2) That there are positive divine punish- 
ments, especially in the future world, the Bible 
teaches with sufficient clearness. And indeed, 
from the scriptural doctrines, that God forgives 
sins, (i. e., removes their consequences,) and that 
Christ, the innocent, endured punishment for us, 
it seems to follow that the sacred writers be- 
lieved in positive punishments and their remis- 
sion. A philosophic argument in behalf of po- 
sitive punishments is derived from the nature 
and efficacy of natural punishments, which are 
not sufficiently great to deter the sinner from 
crime, or lead him to repentance, so that positive 
punishments in addition to these are necessary, 
in order to produce this effect. It was a great 
object with Michaelis to establish this point. 
The arguments brought in opposition to it by 
Steinbart, Eberhard, and others, together with 
the arguments in its favour, were briefly stated, 
s. 31. 

But since this subject is attended with various 
difficulties, which can never be entirely removed 
by human philosophy, owing to the limitation 
of our minds, the question arises, What eourse 
shall the religious teacher pursue on this subject, 
and what instruction shall he give respecting po- 
sitive divine punishments? In order to come to 
a right decision on this question, and to be able 
to answer it for ourselves, we must not proceed 
upon empty speculations, or ideal conceptions, 
but from the following results of experience. 
The history of all ages teaches that the prevail- 
ing notion among men always has been and 
still is, that God inflicts not only natural, but 
also positive and arbitrary punishments; or, 
that moral evil has not only natural evil for its 
consequent, but also such punishments as de- 
pend entirely upon the choice of the lawgiver. 
Hence sicknesses and other calamities, which 
stand in no natural connexion with crime, were 
yet often regarded as the punishments of it — e. 
g., the pestilence in the camp of the Greeks be- 



fore Troy was so regarded in Homer; cf. Iliad, 
xvi. 384, seq. Now, in what way did this idea 
obtain so wide a prevalence among men, and so 
strong a hold upon them 1 If we make history 
and experience our teachers, we shall come to 
the following conclusions: — 

(a) Human legislators can threaten only po- 
sitive punishments, because they are able to in 
flict no other. For they are neither the authors 
nor the rulers of nature, but are themselves, as 
well as those over whom they rule, subject to 
that constitution which God has given to nature. 
Since, now, men are apt to reason from the hu- 
man to the divine, they were disposed to trans- 
fer to God and his government those procedures 
and institutions common in human families and 
states. From hence it is obvious how even hea- 
then nations should have come so generally to 
this notion. They reasoned thus : As men have 
the right to enact arbitrary laws and impose ar- 
bitrary punishments, this right must belong in 
a far higher degree to the supreme legislative 
power, which knows of no limitation. It was by 
such arguments that they arrived, at this idea, 
though by such alone the reflecting mind is not 
satisfied. But, 

(b) The true cause of this universal belief lies 
much deeper. There is on this subject a certain 
feeling of need in human nature which cannot be 
reasoned away, and which often exercises its 
power even over the speculative philosopher, al- 
though he has long suppressed it by his specula- 
tion. It is but too clearly proved by daily ex- 
perience, that fear of the merely natural conse- 
quences of sin is too inefficacious to restrain men 
from committing it. For these natural punish- 
ments man has but little regard, and he thinks 
he can find means to avoid them, or to secure 
himself against them. The end, therefore, can 
be more surely answered by positive punish- 
ments. This result, built upon experience, al- 
though men were only obscurely conscious of it, 
awakened in them a feeling which made it ne- 
cessary for them to believe that there are posi- 
tive divine judgments. Hence many even of the 
ancient heathen lawgivers took means to give 
to natural laws and penalties the authority of 
positive, and for this purpose they intimately 
associated the civil and religious institutions of 
their country. 

(c) If there are positive rewards in the future 
world, as all concede, it is hard to see how posi- 
tive punishments can be denied. Vide s. 31. 

(d) To any one who makes the holy scriptures 
the source of his knowledge, this subject cannot 
be doubtful; for the scriptures clearly teach 
that there are positive punishments, and presup- 
pose them in many of the most important doc- 
trines. 

But if any one remains unconvinced by philo- 
sophical arguments and by the authority of the 



316 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Bible, that God actually appoints positive pu- 
nishments, he must be referred to the fact and 
observation above mentioned, that this belief 
cannot be taken away from a people without 
endangering- its morality. Even if a religious 
teacher should himself entertain doubts on this 
subject, it would be foolish and wrong in him to 
communicate these doubts to the people, and 
thus deprive them of a belief for which he can 
substitute nothing equally firm and salutary. 
The history of all ages teaches that nothing has 
so injurious an effect upon the morality of peo- 
ple as the persuasion that there are no positive 
punishments which they have to fear from the 
hand of God. When such punishments have 
been expected, the fear of them has always 
proved a mighty barrier against all the gross out- 
breakings of sin. For a confirmation of these 
remarks let the student consult history ; cf. also 
s. 156, II. Note. 

But, on the other hand, it is equally the duty 
of the religious teacher to rectify, by scriptural 
views, the false opinions which people are apt 
to form respecting the nature of these positive 
punishments, and to prevent, as far as possible, 
their injurious influence. In discharging this 
duty he may be aided by the following scrip- 
tural observations. From the prevailing false 
ideas respecting positive punishments, occasion 
is sometimes taken to condemn others, and to 
pronounce upon them uncharitable censures, as, 
on the other hand, from the bestowment of posi- 
tive rewards, many are disposed to extol and to 
imitate those upon whom they are conferred, 
supposing them to be the favourites of Heaven. 
This results from the mistake that prosperity 
and adversity in this life are proofs of the plea- 
sure or displeasure of God with the conduct of 
men ; something as it is with those who stand 
in favour or disfavour with human rulers. But 
all such opinions have a most unfavourable in- 
fluence upon morality and upon the dispositions 
of men. The teacher must therefore take pains 
to shew, 

(a) That external prosperity and adversity 
in this life are not distributed by God as reward 
and punishment for the moral conduct of men, 
(vide s. 71, II. ;) and that it is therefore judging 
hastily to pronounce positively and decidedly 
that the calamities which befal particular coun- 
tries or individuals, from natural and not moral 
causes, are judgments from God, although they 
may be so overruled by the providence of God, 
and should be so improved as to contribute to the 
promotion of moral good and to the diminution 
of moral evil. 

(|3) That even although positive divine re- 
wards and punishments should take place in the 
present life, (which we are not entitled to deny 
in thesi,) yet men are not in a situation, nor in 
any way qualified, to decide that they are so in 



particular cases, because they have no sure and 
infallible marks by which they can distinguish 
these from advantages and calamities which re- 
sult from other causes, and have no connexion 
with the good or ill desert of men. Hence 
Christ himself warns against such precipitate 
judgments. Vide s. 31, coll. Ps. lxxiii. 2, seq. 

(y) The Old Testament is often appealed to, 
where much is indeed said respecting positive 
rewards and punishments even in the present 
life; and by the unguarded application of such 
texts much injury may be done, even by sincere 
and well-disposed religious teachers. On this 
point instruction should be given to the people 
with due discretion, in conformity with what 
was said on this point, s. 31, ad finem, in the 
note. It must be shewn that the same is not 
true now as was true in that early period of the 
world, and under the peculiar constitution of 
the Jewish religion. This matter can be made 
very plain to any one, by remarking that then 
there were prophets, who, as the divine ambas- 
sadors, expressly declared that this and that 
physical evil was a positive punishment from 
God ; but that, as we have no prophets now, we 
are unable in particular cases to pronounce a de- 
finite decision whether this and that evil is or is 
not to be regarded as a positive punishment. 

(3) Still another chief objection, which is 
often urged against the existence of positive re- 
wards and punishments in the future world, is 
this : God would have named the positive pu- 
nishments which he meant to inflict, and would 
have settled the manner of their infliction in his 
laws. This is done, it is said, by every hu- 
mane and just legislator among men; and it is 
regarded by us as tyranny and despotism for a 
ruler to inflict punishment which he has not 
previously threatened. But this comparison of 
human rulers and magistrates with God, and of 
their punishments with his, will not hold. For 
(a) with human judges and magistrates this re- 
gulation is necessary, in order to prevent the 
judge from acting unjustly or rashly, or from 
inflicting too light or too severe a punishment 
under the influence of momentary feeling. But 
we are secure from any such danger when the pu- 
nishments to be inflicted are left to the disposal 
of an omniscient, all-wise, and benevolent Ruler. 
There is not, therefore, the same reason for this 
that there is in the case of men. (&) Human 
criminal codes, even those which are most com- 
plete, contain only a few species of crimes; nor 
can they have any respect in the appointment 
of the punishment to the motives, the state of 
mind, and innumerable other circumstances 
which make the crime greater or less. But to 
all these circumstances God, who is perfectly 
wise and just, must have respect. How impos- 
sible, now, must it be to give a catalogue of all 
sins and their punishments, according to their 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 317 



endlessly diversified degrees and modifications 1 
Who would read, understand, or regard such a 
catalogue * Would it not make many for the 
first time, and to their great injury, acquainted 
with sins of which they otherwise would have 
known nothing 1 (c) As the future world lies 
entirely beyond the circle of our ideas, it might 
not be even possible fully to describe to us, in 
our present state, every kind of positive reward 
and punishment, (d) The fear of a positive pu- 
nishment at present unknown makes a stronger 
impression upon the sinner, and is more effica- 
cious in deterring him from sin, than that of a 
punishment definitely described ; for, in the 
former case, the sinner will always fear the 
worst, and expect that the punishment will 
strike where he is most susceptible. 
Note. — The holy scriptures, and particularly 



Jesus and his apostles, make it a great object 
to unfold all the consequences of sin, and to 
shew how we can be freed from them. Those 
who are teachers of the gospel should follow 
their example in this respect. They insist par- 
ticularly upon the misery of the soul arising from 
sin, and upon the punishments of the future 
world. This entire misery, or the unhappy 
state of both soul and body, as produced by sin, 
is called in the scriptures by various names — 
e. g., ofo^poj, d7tu>7.fta, ^-avaroj, 6x610$, x. t. X. 
Vide Morus, p. Ill, prope ad finem. Of the 
external evil consequences of sin which befal 
men in the present life the sacred writers speak 
less frequently, partly because these are not by 
any means so great and terrible as the other, 
and partly because they are perfectly obvious, 
and fall under the notice of every one. 



PART II.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT 
BY THE REDEMPTION. 




ARTICLE X. 

OF JESUS CHRIST. 

HIS important article has 
been treated in a great va- 
riety of ways from the ear- 
liest times. The teachers 
of religion and the inter- 
preters of the Bible have, 
for various reasons, been 
dissatisfied with the simple scriptural 
representation, and have often predeter- 
mined, by the principles of some school 
of philosophy, or by religious' opinions 
current at their own time, what could 
be believed concerning the person, offices, and 
merits of Jesus Christ. Any declarations of the 
Bible in opposition to their views have been 
either overlooked, as if they could not be found, 
or, by the help of that artificial exegesis which 
makes anything out of everything, have been 
so explained as to agree with their preconceived 
opinions. In this manner has this article espe- 
cially been treated of late in the protestant 
church, particularly in the Lutheran church in 
Germany. And so common has it become to 
pervert this doctrine in the universities, schools, 
and in popular discourses and writings, that the 
teacher who turns aside from the beaten path 
must possess no small degree of unprejudiced 
piety. My design is, to exhibit, according to 
my honest conviction, the pure, unfalsifed doc- 
trine of the Bible, with its proof, and carefully to 



from other additions and alterations. 

The latter I shall consider by themselves, and 
endeavour to illustrate them from history, and to 
pronounce judgment upon them according to 
their true merits. 



CHAPTER I. 

OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE RESTO- 
RATION OF MEN IN A GENERAL VIEW ; THE 
EXPECTATIONS, PREDICTIONS, AND TYPES OF 
THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR FULFILMENT IN 
JESUS OF NAZARETH. 

SECTION LXXXVIII. 

OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED BY GOD FOR 
THE MORAL RECOVERY AND THE SALVATION OF 
THE HUMAN RACE IN A GENERAL VIEW ; AND 
THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES AND REPRESENTA- 
TIONS ON THIS SUBJECT; AS A GENERAL INTRO- 
DUCTION TO WHAT FOLLOWS. 

I. What is requisite for the moral recover!/ of man. 
The Bible everywhere teaches that man is 
debarred from the enjoyment of vhat happiness 
which God intended for him, by the want of 
holiness, by sin, and deserved punishmpnt. Vide 
Art. IX. Holiness gives the only right of citi- 
zenship in the moral kingdom of God, (,3a<jtXfu* 
&sov.) Now because sin is universal among 
men, all havy need of forgiveness and reforrnu- 
2d2 



318 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Hon-— the remission of sins and regeneration, 
(a^st-j, lAitdvoia, avaylywjtftj.) And since we 
never attain to perfect holiness in this life, what- 
ever advances we may make, [and hence must 
be disquieted with regard to our acceptance with 
God,] it is equally essential that we should 
have some quieting assurance respecting what 
awaits us, in order to the exercise of true reli- 
gion, as that we should reform. These, then, 
are the principal objects at which Christianity 
aims. If men are to be redeemed, these hin- 
drances to their happiness must be removed, 
they must be reformed, and must be forgiven, 
and a comforting assurance that they are so must 
be imparted. This is done in two ways : 

(1) By one method, the power of sinful affec- 
tions is weakened ; so that reason will again at- 
tain to its dominion over them ; by which man 
will be placed in a situation to lead a holy and 
pious life, (5txatw5 xai fvff?j3wj £rjv, x. t. *,.) This 
means, however, must be of such a nature as to 
leave human freedom entirely unimpaired. Re- 
formation in a moral being is effected by bring- 
ing the desires and inclinations, from which 
actions spring, under the control of the intelli- 
gent mind. It is for this reason that in Chris- 
tianity a doctrine is revealed to men to be re- 
ceived and believed by them, intended to en- 
lighten their minds, to teach them how to avoid 
and overcome the temptations to sin, and how to 
live agreeably to the will of God and their own 
destination. This doctrine must exhibit the 
motives for the avoidance of sin and the practice 
of virtue and holiness in a manner universally 
intelligible and convincing, equally designed to 
illuminate the reason and affect the heart. But 
it must also shew in what way man can attain 
power to enable him to be holy. For any mere 
doctrine of virtue, or code of moral precepts, does 
not confer upon man the power of becoming ac- 
tually virtuous. This, as Paul says, is to a8v- 
vatov tov v6fx,ov. The moral law, with all its 
precepts, threatenings, and promises, could not 
by itself make us holy and acceptable. The 
fault, however, does not lie in the law, but in 
that weakness and imperfection which results 
from our depravity, (Sinnlichkeit.) 'Ev £ tfo^s- 
vti, Sta sapxoj. Now in Christianity, as we are 
taught by the sacred writers, the most perfect 
instruction of this nature is given to men. 

(2) But the Bible teaches us that the reco- 
very of man to happiness requires something 
more than this instruction. This other means 
is, the forgiveness of sins, or, freedom from the 
punishment of sin. Nor was it enough that 
men should be merely forgiven ; their tranquil- 
lity and happiness require that they should be 
able to attain to an assurance and certain con- 
viction of the fact. This can be done through 
the atonement of Christ. Many ancient and 



modern philosophers and religious teachers have, 
indeed, maintained that no such atonement is 
necessary, since God forgives the sins of men 
whenever they reform. But the whole history 
of the human race, in ancient and modern times, 
proves that an universal apprehension, arising 
from a universal feeling of need, has prevailed 
among men, that besides inward reformation, 
some other means of propitiating the Deity, and 
averting the deserved punishment of sin, are 
neessary, and do actually exist. 

The following reasons may be given for this 
feeling: — viz. (a) Although one should be 
guilty of no new transgressions, he cannot feel 
a comforting assurance that the sins which he 
has previously committed will be forgiven on the 
ground of his subsequent reformation. Indeed, 
he can find no reason to believe this, while he 
has reason enough to fear the contrary. For 
how can that which is once done be undone, or 
the consequences of it be prevented ? (&) Every 
man, whatever his advances in sanctification, 
must still confess that his holiness is very im- 
perfect, and that he frequently sins. How, 
then, can he hope to deserve the mercy of God 
by a holiness which is so imperfect and min- 
gled with sin 1 It is the voice of conscience, 
then, which has produced and spread so widely 
among men this feeling of the necessity of an 
expiation. There is not a nation upon the 
globe, as Plutarch has observed, which has not 
certain appointments for this purpose; such as 
offerings, cleansings, and other religious rites. 
Cf. Meiners, Geschichte der Religionem, 'a. 
123, f. 

Nov/ it will be in vain to endeavour to take 
away this feeling from man, considering how 
universal and deeply rooted it is, and that it is 
founded upon the voiee of conscience, and cor- 
responds with the most natural and familiar no- 
tions which men form respecting God, and his 
manner of feeling and acting. The religious 
teacher who withholds from his people the doc- 
trine of pardon through Christ — who represents 
it as uncertain and doubtful, or entirely rejects 
it, acts very inconsiderately and unadvisedly. 
He cannot substitute anything better, or more 
consoling. And when the consciences of men 
awake, he will be unable to give other grounds 
which can prove so entirely sufficient for their 
consolation. 

II. The different institutions which God has ap- 
pointed for the restoration and moral perfection 
of the haman race in a general view. 

(1) The means which God employs for this 
purpose are very various and manifold. They 
are designed partly to weaken the power and 
dominion of sin; partly to instruct men, and to 
shew them the true way to happiness, and give 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION 



319 



them power to pursue it. These objects are 
promoted even by the original constitution which 
God has given to nature, the movements of con- 
science, the unhappy feelings which follow upon 
sinful actions, &c. ; also by the common and ex- 
traordinary instruction which God has given to 
men, in one way and another, (7i07.vu.spZs xai 
Tio'Kvr port's, Heb. i. 1 ;) by the opportunity 
afforded us of becoming acquainted with the na- 
ture of virtue and vice — the happiness of the 
good, and the wretchedness of the bad, by ob- 
serving the example and profiting by the expe- 
rience of others ; — in short, by history, which is 
one of the best teachers of the human race. 

The history of every nation is useful in this 
respect ; but that of the Jewish nation possesses 
uncommon interest. Jesus and his apostles 
allude to it constantly in their discourses, It is 
indeed highly instructive, and exhibited in such 
a way as to make the deepest impression upon 
the most numerous class of men. It always re- 
presents God not simply as a metaphysical being:, 
but as conversant with men, and acting after the 
manner of men. It presents clearly before our 
eyes the attributes of God, the course of his pro- 
vidence, and the salutary discipline he exercises 
over men. Those religious teachers who en- 
tirely reject the use of the Old Testament in the 
instruction of the common people and of the 
young, and who would gladly see the book itself 
cast aside, know not what they do. They de- 
prive themselves and their charge of great ad- 
vantages. It is, indeed, abused in various ways, 
as it was at the time of Christ; but this does 
not prevent its proper use. Respecting the use 
of the history of the Old Testament, vide 1 Cor. 
x. 6, 11 ; Rom. xv. 4, and Koppen's excellent 
work, "Die Bibel, ein Werk der gottlichen ^Weis- 
heit ;" and J. G. Muller, Von dem christlichen 
Religionsunterrichte ; Winterthur, 1S09, 8vo. 

But the greatest blessing which God has be- 
stowed upon men, as the Bible everywhere 
teaches, is the appearance of Christ in the world, 
his instructions, and his entire work for the hu- 
man race; Rom. xi. 33, 36. Still, we ought 
not to undervalue or exclude the other benevo- 
lent institutions by which God has benefited 
and does still benefit, not only Christians, but 
mankind at large. Ail these means should be 
considered as inseparably connected, as they 
really are, and as the scriptures represent them. 
Cf. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. ; Hess, 
Vora Reiche Gottes ; Lessing, Erziehung des 
Mensehengeschlechts; Berlin, 1780. 

(2) These means are universal. Vide Morus, 
p. 126, s. 6. God has not, indeed, bestowed 
them at all times, and upon all nations; since 
all men in all sges Lave not been capable of re- 
ceiving them ; but he has selected the most pro- 
per in every age and nation; so that the know- 



ledge and worship of God, piety and virtue, 
have never been wholly lost from the earth. 
"We should not confine our attention to the Jew- 
ish nation, but should search out and thankfully 
admire the traces of divine care over nations 
called heathen. Even in the midst of their im- 
perfect knowledge of God, and of their polythe- 
ism, we often find true religiousness and piety, 
which, notwithstanding their erroneous views, 
are certainly acceptable in the sight of God. 
The aneient writers are full of such instances. 
The gracious care and providence of God is as 
clearly seen in raising up good legislators, prac- 
tical sages, teachers of the people, promoters of 
science and morality, among the Greeks, Ro- 
mans, and other people of the earth, for their 
improvement and moral good, as in the institu- 
tions which he established among the Jewish 
people for the same purposes. These natural 
means which God employs redound as much to 
his glory as the supernatural. 

Paul therefore says expressly, that God has 
given the heathen opportunity of knowing him ; 
that he has not left himself without a witness 
among them ; and that they, too, will be inex- 
cusable if they leave unimproved that knowledge 
of God imparted to them through nature, Acts, 
xvii. 27; Rom. i. 18, seq. Accordingly, the 
virtue and piety which the heathen practise, 
after the measure of their imperfect knowledge, 
is represented in the Bible as agreeable to God. 
The case of the centurion Cornelius is an exam- 
ple, Acts, x. God accounted him worthy to be 
entrusted with more knowledge, because he 
proved himself faithful in the use of that lesser 
degree which he possessed. 

The national pride of the Jews led them into 
the mistake that God had a special regard for 
them : that they were more agreeable to him than 
other nations ; that they exclusively were his 
children; and that the Messiah was designed 
only for them. These mistakes are frequently 
opposed in the New Testament; there is d$ 
Osbi xai Ilarrp rtdituv, Ephes. iv. 5, 6 ; 1 Tim. 
ii. 5, seq. God has no partiality, (Ttposurro^-iux,) 
Rom. x. 12; Acts, x. 34; all have equal right 
to the divine blessings, especial'y to those con- 
ferred by Christianity; John, x. 16; Ephes. i. 10; 
ii. 14, 18 ; Rom. v. 18, seq. ; and the texts cited by 
Morus. p. 126. s. 6, n. 1, 3. This universality of 
the divine favours is expressly asserted even in 
the Old Testament. The prophets frequently 
affirm that the knowledge of the true God will 
become universal among the heathen, and that 
they by no means shall be excluded from it; 
Deut. xxxii. 31 ; Isaiah, ii. and lxvi. Indeed, 
the Old Testament contains promises of far bet- 
ter times in future for the heathen than for the 
Jews. 

(3) They are appointed by God with great 



320 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



wisdom in reference to the nature of man and 
the circumstances of particular times. Such 
means are selected as allow the freedom of 
man, and leave him at liberty to choose or reject. 
It is the internal force of truth which is made to 
influence man, and not external compulsatory 
means. Moreover, God, like a wise father and 
teacher, proceeds according to the time and age 
of the human race in general, and of nations and 
individuals in particular. He regulates his in- 
struction according to their capacity. He does 
not overload their infancy with such laws and 
precepts as they cannot understand, but saves 
the higher instruction for the maturer age of a 
more advanced generation. 

This greater or less capability of some gene- 
rations and nations in comparison with others, 
should be considered as one reason why God 
did not earlier disclose certain truths which are 
peculiar to Christianity, and why he still with- 
holds them from certain nations and countries. 
For such nations, however, he provides in ano- 
ther way, and leads them to that degree of hap- 
piness of which they are capable. He is not 
confined to one method, as is shewn in the 
Introduction. Nor is the education of the human 
race confined to this life; provision will doubt- 
less be made to enable those who are innocently 
deficient here to make up their loss hereafter. 

Note. — In the New Testament, the terms 
X^P 1 ^ X°-9 l s ©fov, Scop?a Qeov, are used to denote 
the whole compass of means employed by God to 
bring men to happiness, as well as any particu- 
lar means. Vide Morus, p. 122, 125. The term 
^aptj is used in various senses ; and as unscrip- 
tural ideas are often attached to it, we shall here 
briefly explain the scriptural significations. It 
corresponds to the Hebrew >n, and sometimes to 
i&n, and similar words. It signifies (1) in gene- 
ral, the unmerited love and benevolence which 
God, as the supreme Governor, bears for all his 
creatures and subjects, and especially for men; 
and so is synonymous with aydrtyj, xpyjSTfotrj^, 
^aav^pcort/a, Tit. iii. 4; and (2) the conse- 
quences and proofs of this gracious regard ; in 
short, all undeserved divine favours ; John, i. 
16, zapij uvti zdprto$. These are elsewhere called 
%dpi,Gpa, Scopfa, x. t.%. Cf. Rom. v. 15. Inas- 
much as they are undeserved, they are contrast- 
ed with dfel'krjfia, Rom. iv. 4. 

Hence arise various other significations, by 
which certain great favours are called ^apt-r'fj, 
by way of eminence: as (a) the Christian doc- 
trine and institute in general, and particularly 
that principal doctrine of Christianity, the gra- 
cious forgiveness of sin on account of Christ. 
Xoptj xai aT^teia, John, i. 7 ; "koyo$ ^apt^of, the 
benevolent doctrine, Acts, xiv. 3 ; %dpi$ ®sov, 
Tit. ii. 11, #apts XptcfT'ov, and ^aptj simply, 
Acts, xviii. 27, seq. (6) Certain employments, 



businesses, and offices in the Christian church, 
and the talents, abilities, and gifts bestowed b}' 
God upon particular persons in reference to 
these offices. Thus Rom. i. 5, ^apc? xoi tuto- 
6-to%ri' also xii. 3. In other texts, ^apts/ta is 
used, with which %dpi$ is interchanged as sy- 
nonymous in 1 Pet. iv. 10, and in the epistles 
to the Corinthians. From these and similar 
texts. is derived (c) the ecclesiastical usage, in 
which gratia denotes, by way of eminence, the 
operations of God upon the hearts of men for 
their improvement and conversion. These ope- 
rations were called actiones gratias, and the con- 
dition of a converted man statum gratix. The 
Latin church, especially since the time of Au- 
gustine, has used this w T ord in this sense. Vide 
Vide infra, s. 129. 

From what has been said, it appears that the 
grace of God is only his goodness, considered in 
a particular relation. Grace is the goodness of 
a superior to a subordinate person. The ruler, 
properly speaking, is gracious only to the sub- 
ject, and the lord to the slave. The Bible con- 
forms to this usage. God, then, is gracious, in 
the highest sense of this word, because he is the 
supreme and necessary ruler and governor of 
men. Everything, consequently, which God 
does for men, relating to the body or soul, is an 
operation of his grace, actus gratise divinse. And 
this grace is free, because no one can compel it; 
and the very idea of grace excludes all merit, 
Rom. iv. 4. 

III. The particular purpose of God to restore the 
human race by Christ. 

The New Testament teaches that God has 
determined to bestow his favours upon men 
through Christ, and to lead them to holiness and 
happiness by him. Hence Christ is called 
op2*7yoj t>w$. Acts, iii. 15, coll. ver. 26. This 
term is explained by alrtos scoTfrjpia^ Heb. v. 9, 
coll. Acts, xvii. 30, 31. The gracious decree 
of God to pardon, sanctify, and bless mankind, 
and the institutions he has established for this 
purpose, are called #api$ acotrjp^, Tit. ii. 11; 
iii. 4. The following particulars are implied — 
viz., God designs to free men from the unhap- 
piness occasioned by sin, (<?w^stv;) and also to 
bestow upon them unmerited favours, ^apt-row, 
2<xptj, x. tf. %.) These favours are pardon, sanc- 
tification, and eternal blessedness, also informa- 
tion communicated by God respecting this 
blessedness, instruction as to the manner how 
we may attain to it, and strength imparted to us 
for this end. This grace of God is called rj 
%dpis &sov iv XpcijT'ci So^tetW, 1 Cor. i. 4. It is 
always represented in the New Testament as 
bestowed upon us through Christ, and on his 
account. By him God teaches us and renews 
us ; pardons us on account of his death ; and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 321 



Destows upon us eternal blessedness through 
him and for his sake. Everything proceeds 
from him, and is referred to him. This purpose 
of God is also described in the Bible by the 
words §£%rftia ®eov, rtpo^stfts rtpdywoca? and rtpo- 
opt£W, Ephes. i. 4, 11; iii. 11. The Bible 
says, too, that God made this decree from eter- 
nity, (rtpo aiu>vcov, or xatafio'krjS xoa/xov.) All 
the divine decrees are of this peculiar 'nature, 
as is implied in the particle rtpo. The passage 
1 Pet. i. 20 is very clear upon this subject. 
From the Old Testament, the passage Ps. xl. 
7, seq., belongs in this connexion. This decree 
is always described as the free determination of 
God. Thus in the passages cited it is called 
BvSoxLa^s'kr l ixatot. Not that it would have been 
consistent for God to desert the human race, and 
leave it to perish; the divine goodness forbids 
such a supposition. The simple meaning is, 
that no external necessity compelled him to it, 
and that it is his free grace, without any desert 
or worthiness on the part of men. Paul too, in 
Rom. ix. — xi., speaks of the free grace of God 
in respect to the new institute which he esta- 
blished upon earth by Christ. 

The following result may be deduced from 
what has been said : — Christianity is founded 
upon the principles, (a) that all men are consi- 
dered as sinners in the sight of God ; to which 
the conscience of every one bears testimony, 
(vide No. I. ad finem ;) and that therefore 
(b) they are subject to the punishment of sin, 
as experience proves. The distinguishing trait 
of Christianity is this : that it promises to men 

DELIVERANCE FROM SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT 

of sin, before it requires of them perfect holi- 
ness, acceptable to God. It thus comes to the 
relief of ignorant, desponding, and feeble man; 
inspires him with confidence in God, and with 
love to him; acquaints him with his destination 
to true holiness and unalterable happiness, and 
shews the only way by which he can attain it. 
Any philosophy or system of religion which re- 
verses this order, and demands holiness of men 
before it gives the power to attain it; which re- 
presents holiness as the procuring cause of for- 
giveness ; fails of its object, and asserts and 
requires an impossibility. The great point in 
this pardon or amnesty which Christianity pro- 
mises^ is the doctrine that Jesus Christ came 
into the world to bless sinful men, to free them 
from sin and death; 1 Tim. i. 15, coll. 2 Tim. 
a. 10; John, iii. 16, 17. This pardon, however, 
reaches men only when, under divine guidance 
and assistance, they act according to the con- 
ditions and precepts laid down. Hence forgive- 
ness and eternal life are inseparably connected 
in Christianity with the requisition of repent- 
ance and faith made active by love. These 
doctrines are always connected in the scrip- 
tures; so Tit. ii. 11 — 14. 
41 



SECTION LXXXIX. 

FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF 
MESSIAH AMONG THE ANCIENT AND MODERN 
JEWS; THEIR VARIOUS OPINIONS RESPECTING 
him; and THE PROOF THAT JESUS was the 
MESSIAH. 

I. The gradual development of the idea of a 



(1) The idea of a former happy condition in 
the earliest ages of the world is universal among 
men, and is found too among the Israelites 
Vide s. 56. But it is quite as natural to the 
human mind to console itself in the midst of 
troubles, sufferings, and the feeling of physical 
and moral imperfection, with the hope of better 
times to come, and of a future happy condition, 
either in this life or the life to come, or in both 
together. Hence arose the fables of the heathen 
respecting the return of a golden age, the ex- 
pected dwelling of the gods upon earth, and 
pictures of a similar nature, in which their 
wishes and expectations were embodied. These 
ideas, like those concerning the original golden 
age, are held by every nation, and are founded, 
like those, in a feeling of necessity which is 
deep laid in the human soul. These ideas, ex- 
pectations, and wishes, are found in every na- 
tion; differently modified, however, according 
to their particular situation and mode of think- 
ing and representation. One people is more 
bold and confident in its expectations ; another 
is more moderate, hoping and washing -atner 
than determining and deciding. 

(2) The Jewish nation, too, expected such a 
return of the golden age to the earth ; and they 
were justified in this by the declarations and 
promises of their oldest prophets. But this ex- 
pectation of the Jews was peculiar, and distin- 
guished from that of others in this respect, that 
this period was placed by them in the times 
when the Messiah should appear. These happy 
times were called N2n zhty. 

(3) But the question here arises — Is the doc- 
trine respecting the Messiah, the Saviour of the 
world, a doctrine really revealed by God to 
men ; or is it merely a human opinion, origi- 
nating among the Jews from their accidental 
circumstances, — in short, a Jewish fable, em 
ployed by Christ and the apostles for benevo 
lent, moral purposes 1 

First. The last supposition is maintained in 
general by those who deny or question all di- 
rect revelation; by all, indeed, who deny the 
reality of miracles ; for predictions belong to the 
class of miraculous occurrences; and the objec- 
tions made to one may be made to the other. 
Vide s. 7, III., s. 72, II. These writers endea- 
vour by various hypotheses to explain the na- 
tural origin of this idea. Cf. Stephani, Gedan- 



322 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ken tiber die Entstehung und Ausbildung der 
Idee von einem Messias ; Niirnberg, 1787, 8vo. 
Eckermann, Theologische Beytrage, b. ii. st. 
1; Altona, 1791, 8vo. Ziegler, Entwickelung 
des wahrscheinlichen Ursprungs der Idee vom 
Messias, in Henke's Mag. fiir Religionsphilo- 
sophie, b. i. st. 1, Abhandl. 2. Amrnon, Ver- 
such einer Christologie des alten Testaments ; 
Erlangen, 1794, 8vo. Their principal opinions 
may be compressed in the following statement — 
viz., 

Many brave heroes and deliverers (tfo-r^psji 
oytfiD) had appeared among the Jews from the 
earliest period of their history, and had contri- 
buted to the public weal. Such were the pro- 
phets and great kings. But the advantages 
which had been hoped for, both in respect to 
religious and moral improvement, and also in 
respect to civil and social welfare, had not as 
yet been realized, and were still expected in fu- 
ture time. By degrees, all wishes, hopes, and 
expectations centred in one person, who would 
accomplish all which was desired. This idea 
did not become general, or rather, did not take 
its origin, among the Jews until after the Baby- 
lonish captivity. This person was expected to 
be the deliverer and helper of the Jewish nation, 
and principally a temporal deliverer, who would 
establish an earthly kingdom. This idea pre- 
vailed widely among the Jews at the time of 
Christ, and, by the aid of the allegorical inter- 
pretation then current, was carried into the more 
ancient of their sacred books. Now Jesus, it 
is said, found this idea, and connected it, such 
as he found it, with his doctrine; not consider- 
ing it himself (as many say) to be really true. 
He modified this idea, and gave himself out for 
a spiritual deliverer of mankind by his instruc- 
tion. Eckermann, therefore, affirms distinctly, 
that in the whole Old Testament there are no 
proper predictions of Christ. Beytr. st. 1. 

Remarks on this Explanation. 

(a) All accounts of the origin of this idea, 
which are exclusive of direct divine revelation, 
if not otherwise objectionable, are merely con- 
jectural and hypothetical, and cannot be histo- 
rically proved. This is the reason why they 
are so various and contradictory ; there is no 
sure historical ground and basis upon which 
they can be established and built; they are mere 
plays of the imagination, mere conjectures as to 
the manner in which the thing may possibly 
have been. And indeed, many cases may be 
imagined possible, no one of which can be proved 
to be historically true, and most of which have 
historical evidence against them. This discre- 
pancy of views among writers on this subject, 
therefore, never will or can cease, as long as 
they proceed in this way. 

(6) The assertion of Eckermann and others, 



that the Old-Testament descriptions of the Mes- 
siah are not descriptions of Jesus, but of an 
earthly king, is unfounded. For although the 
Messiah is often compared to a king, as even 
God is, he is also named and described as a 
prophet and priest. And to free men from sin, 
to instruct them, and promote their moral im- 
provement, are ascribed to him as the principal 
part and proper object of his advent. Psalm 
xxii., xl., ex. ; Isaiah, ii., xi., liii. 

(c) The predictions of the prophets represent 
the Messiah not as the king and ruler of a sin- 
gle nation, as the Jewish kings were, but as the 
king and benefactor of all who should be friend- 
ly to him. In the predictions of the Jewish 
prophets he is promised quite as much, and 
even more, to the heathen than to the Jews 
themselves. Vide the passages before cited. 
The promises given to Abraham, Gen. xii. 3 ; 
xxii. 18, are certainly free from any Jewish ex- 
clusiveness, and are as comprehensive as pos- 
sible. 

(d) The assertion that the idea of Messiah 
originated during the Babylonish captivity, or 
afterwards, and that the earlier Jews differently 
understood the so-named Messianic passages in 
Moses and the prophets, is contrary to history. 
For the idea respecting a Messiah was univer- 
sal among the Samaritans at the time of Christ, 
and much earlier. And indeed it was held by 
the Samaritans more purely than by the greater 
part of the Jews ; as the Messiah was represent- 
ed by thern as the great Prophet and Saviour, 
John, iv. 25, 42, seq. Therefore this idea must 
have existed among the Jews before the reli- 
gious separation between them and the Samari- 
tans ; and consequently before the Babylonian 
exile. For the Samaritans would not certainly 
have received it from the Jews after the separa- 
tion. Whence then did they derive it ] They 
admitted only the five books of Moses from the 
whole Old Testament. Accordingly, they must 
have grounded their expectation upon the testi- 
mony of Moses, and the interpretation of this 
testimony given them by the Israelitish teach- 
ers sent to them from Assyria, 2 Kings, xvii. 
27, seq. The Israelites, therefore, must have 
had the idea of a Messiah long before the Baby- 
lonian exile, and must have found it, too, in the 
books of Moses. 

Secondly. — The whole opinion that the idea 
of Messiah does not depend upon divine revela- 
tion, and that it is not contained in the oldest 
sacred records of the Hebrews, stands in the 
most palpable contradiction to the clearest decla- 
rations of Christ and his apostles. For (a) the 
writings of the prophets are acknowledged by 
them to be of divine authority, and the doc- 
trines and predictions contained in them are not 
treated as fictions and fables, but as truly re- 
vealed by God. And (b) it is no less certain 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 323 



that they teach that there are in Moses and the 
prophets predictions respecting the Messiah, or 
benefactor of the world, and that these were ful- 
filled in Jesus. Jesus himself frequently as- 
serts this in the most impressive and solemn 
manner, Luke, xviii. 31 — 33; xxii. 37; xxiv. 
27; Matt. xx. 18, 19; xxvi. 54; Mark, ix. 12; 
John, v. 39, 46. And in this his apostles ex- 
actly follow his example. Acts, ii. 16, 25; viii. 
18; x. 34; xiii. 23, 32; xxvi. 22, 23; 1 Pet. i. 
11 ; 2 Pet. i. 19, and the Pauline epistles. The 
apostles themselves therefore believed this. 

Now if Jesus and his apostles were merely 
human teachers, they may possibly have erred 
in this matter; as also many of the Jewish 
teachers of that time, who interpreted these pas- 
sages in the same way, may have done. But 
if they were divinely commissioned, what they 
say on this subject must be believed. For I 
am not at. liberty to proceed optionally in be- 
lieving the declarations of a man whom I ac- 
knowledge to be divinely commissioned. I am 
not at liberty to make selection of what I will 
admit and what reject at my good pleasure. I 
must rather yield unconditional faith to each 
and every thing which he, as a divine messen- 
ger, teaches and declares. Consistency, then, 
requires us to go on this principle in this sub- 
ject. Vide Herder, Briefe das Studium der 
Theologie betreffend, br. 18, 21, particularly s. 
303, f. 349—352, th. ii. Cf. Herder's Work, 
» Vom Erloser der Menschen, nach unsern drey 
ersten Evangelisten ; Riga, 1796, 8vo. [Cf. es- 
pecially Hengstenberg, " Christologie," where 
this whole subject is more ably discussed than 
anywhere else. — Tr.] 

II. Various opinions of the Jews at and after the 
time of Christ respecting the Messiah, and the 
nature of his kingdom. 

(1) At the time of Christ, and previously, 
the current opinion of the people in Palestine, 
and indeed of most of the Pharisees and law- 
yers, was, that he would be a temporal deliverer 
and a king of the Jews, and indeed, a universal 
monarch, who would reign over all nations. 
Thus they interpreted the passages, Psalm ii. 2, 
6, 8; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6; Zech. ix. 4, seq. Hence 
those who, during the lifetime of Jesus, ac- 
knowledged him to be the Messiah, wished to 
proclaim him king, John, vi. 15, coll. Matt. xxi. 
8, 9. The apostles themselves held this opi- 
nion until after the resurrection of Christ, Mat- 
thew, xx. 20, 21 ; Luke, xxiv. 21 ; Acts, i. 6. 
And Jesus himself, during his life upon earth, 
proceeded very guardedly, in order to lead them 
gradually from this deep-rooted prejudice, and 
and not to take it away at once. Josephus says 
that the enthusiasm of the Jews in the war 
against the Romans, was very much increased 
by this belief of an universal monarchy. Vide 



Bell. Jud. vi. 5. Suetonius (Vesp. c. 4) and 
Tacitus (Hist. v. 13) speak of this expectation 
spread throughout all the East by the Jews. It 
was expected that he would institute new reli- 
gious rites, (John, i. 25 ;) that he would perform 
uncommonly great miracles, (John, vii. 31 ;) 
that he would be born at Bethlehem, of the line 
of David, and yet from obscure parents, (John, 
vii. 42;) and that he would never die, (John, 
xii. 34.) 

(2) Some, but by far the smallest number, 
had purer ideas respecting the Messiah ; and did 
not so much expect an earthly kingdom as for- 
giveness of sin, instruction, diffusion of truth, 
and, in short, spiritual blessings. Simeon had 
this correct view, (Luke, ii. 30, seq. ;) the ma- 
lefactor on the cross, (Luke, xxiii. 43 ;) and &. 
few other Jews at the time of Christ. Many 
pious Jews, too, out of Palestine, may be sup- 
posed to have had the same correct views. For 
even the common people of Samaria had opi- 
nions on this subject comparatively pure. Vide 
John, iv. 25, seq. Jesus approved these opi- 
nions as just and scriptural, and always acted 
in conformity with them. Vide Luke, xvii. 20, 
21 ; John, xviii. 36 — 38. It is, then, very un- 
just to charge him with the intention of esta- 
blishing an earthly kingdom, as is done in the 
work " Vom Zweck Jesu," Braunschweig, 
1778. Vide Koppe " Progr. de sententia Judae- 
orum de Messia et futuro ejus regno;" Gott. 
1779. 

(3) Many united both of these opinions, and 
considered the Messiah as a teacher and earthly 
king at the same time, as the supreme head of 
church and state. This appears to have been 
the opinion of the apostles and most of the dis- 
ciples of Christ, while he lived upon the earth. 
A multitude of C hristians of the Judaizing party, 
during the first and second centuries, believed 
that Christ would return to the earth to establish 
a temporal kingdom for a thousand years — an 
opinion which has been indulged by many 
Christians in every age down to the present 
time. 

(4) Some of the Jews at the time of Christ, 
and previously, were free-thinkers, and appear 
to have rejected the whole notion of a Messiah 
as a popular superstition, a fabulous and ground- 
less expectation. Especially was this the case 
after the destruction of the Jewish state by the 
Romans. Many of the Jews out of Palestine, 
especially the learned Grecian Jews, appear to 
have been of this way of thinking. Accord- 
ingly, there is no mention of this idea even in 
the Book of Wisdom, or in all the writings of 
Philo. And even Josephus, in his desire to 
please the Greeks and Romans, appears to have 
been ashamed of this faith of his fathers, and so 
always avoids the subject. They were satis- 
fied with mere morality, and connected the Gre- 



3.24 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



cian philosophy with the doctrines of the Jew- 
sh religion and theology. This silence is the 
more remarkable, especially in Philo, consider- 
ing how much he v/as given to the allegorical 
interpretation of the Old Testament. 

(5) We find all these different opinions re- 
peated in the writings of the Jews who lived 
after the time of Christ and the destruction of 
the temple, — in the Chaldaic paraphrases, in 
the book Sohar, in the Talmud, and in the Rab- 
bins, where so many of the ancient traditions 
are exhibited. 

(a) The opinions of the more modern Jews 
were very various respecting the importance of 
the doctrine itself. Some considered it to be 
the most important doctrine of their faith, and 
expected that a complete restoration of religion, 
morality, and happiness, would be effected by 
the Messiah. In their view he was to accom- 
plish, as it were, a new political and moral 
creation ; so Maimonides. Others considered 
it as a doctrine of less importance, and seldom 
mentioned it. Many of them appear, in reality, 
to have rejected it altogether, or to have been 
ashamed of it. 

(b) In respect to the institutions of the Mes- 
siah, and the object of his mission, they exhi- 
bited the same diversity as prevailed at an ear- 
lier period. Most adhered to the gross opinion 
of the establishment of an earthly kingdom, and 
the subjection of the DM3. Others made his 
most prominent object to be, the improvement 
of doctrine, the restoration of morals, and spiri- 
tual blessedness. But these were comparatively 
few. 

(c) Some of the Jews who could not under- 
stand how the Messiah should be described by 
the prophets sometimes as king (Ps. ii., ex. ; 
Is. xi.,) and sometimes as inferior, lowly and 
despised, (Ps. xxii. ; Is. liii.,) invented the doc- 
trine of a twofold Messiah, in order to reconcile 
these accounts; one, the inferior, despised Mes- 
siah, Joseph's son, in whom Christians believe; 
the other, David's son, who is yet to come and 
establish his kingdom. 

(d) Many of the Jews endeavoured to account 
for the long delay of the Messiah by the sinful- 
ness of which their nation is guilty. The pro- 
mise, they say, was made conditionally. But 
this hypothesis derives no support from the 
Messianic oracles in the Old Testament. 

III. The method of proving that Jesus of Nazareth 
is the true Messiah. 

(1) This is proved from the marks and de- 
scriptions which the Old Testament gives of 
the Messiah, all o^ which meet in Jesus in the 
most remarkable manner. This proof that Jesus 
is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, 
may be made extremely convincing. Chris- 
tians, however, do not, as Collins supposes, by 



any means rely solely on the predictions of the 
Old Testament for the Messianic authority of 
Jesus, nor does Christ himself. Vide John, v. 
34, seq. For these predictions, though ever so 
valuable and important in themselves, are al- 
ways, like all predictions, in a certain degree 
obscure. The Old Testament is indeed very 
instructive and useful, when rightly employed, 
but it is not the only ground on which the con- 
fidence of Christians rests. It affords important 
proof even for Christians, but not the only proof. 
Vide vol. i. s. 12, II. 

This method of proof from the Old Testament 
is especially useful in convincing the Jews, and 
in refuting their objections. Thus Christ ap- 
plies it, John, v. 39 — 47. All the marks which 
the Jews consider characteristic of the Messiah, 
according to their sacred books, agree exactly 
in Jesus. And all those traits and minute cir- 
cumstances which are exhibited in passages of 
the Old Testament acknowledged by the Jews 
themselves to relate to the Messiah, meet in him 
as they do not in any other person known in 
history. He was born at Bethlehem, of the fa- 
mily of David, of which the Jews have now for 
a long time had no continued genealogical ta- 
bles. He had a precursor. He confirmed his 
doctrine by the most striking miracles. He 
died, was honourably buried, and rose again. 
His garments were divided. Vinegar was 
given him to drink. And many other circum- 
stances of the same nature, greater and smaller, 
which were predicted concerning the Messiah, 
were fulfilled in Jesus. Such passages are 
therefore very frequently urged by the apostles 
against the Jews, in order to convince them. 

(2) Christians who acknowledge the divine 
authority of the New Testament, and the credi- 
bility of Jesus and the apostles, have an addi- 
tional and principal ground of their belief of 
this truth, in the testimony and information 
contained in the books of the New Testament. 
Throughout these books Jesus is represented as 
the greatest divine messenger, Lord over all, the 
Saviour of the world, (Scot 1 ^, $w$ -tov xosfiov, o 
Kvpto$.) In short, he is described as the same 
person whom the Jews call Messiah. If divine 
wisdom had seen proper to raise him up in an- 
other country, and under other circumstances. 
his name and the form of his doctrine might, in- 
deed, have been different, while the substance 
itself would have continued the same. 

According to the constant representation ot 
the New Testament, God himself confirmed the 
truth that Jesus was the Messiah. He did this 
by John the Baptist, John, i. 19 — 41 ; by voices 
from heaven at the baptism of Christ, and on 
other occasions ; by angels, Luke, i. 30 — 38 ; by 
Jesus himself, who confirmed the truth of his 
declarations by miracles, John, iv. 25, 26 ; Matt 
xxvi. 62, 63 ; and by the apostles commissioned 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 325 



So be his messengers, Acts, ii. 22 — 38 ; 1 John, 
i. and ii. 1 ; &c. 

Thus in all the passages of the New Testa- 
ment where it is said that Jesus is the Messiah, 
or that the Messiah has come in the person of 
Jesus, the idea is always implied that Jesus is 
the promised Lord and Redeemer, the Benefactor 
and Saviour. In short, the word Messiah, which 
grammatically signifies king, becomes a doc- 
trinal word, synonymous with Kvptoj and %u>- 
tr$. And in this way the erroneous views of 
the Jews respecting the Messiah were correct- 
ed. If we would consider the subject in this 
light, and be satisfied with the representations 
which the New Testament gives of it, we should 
easily avoid the difficulties with which many 
nave been perplexed regarding this doctrine. 
Vide Eckermann, Theol. Beytr. st. 1. We 
should not then declare, with this writer and 
others, that the doctrine that Jesus is the Mes- 
siah belongs only to the Jews, and is not an es- 
sential doctrine of pure Christianity. The He- 
brew name rwp was Jewish or Israelitish, but 
the thing denoted by it was intended for all, and 
is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 

Note. — Works on some of the subjects treated 
in this section. For information respecting 
the Jewish opinions of the Messiah, vide Maii 
"Synopsis Theol. Judaica?;" Giess, 1G98, 
4to; Glassner, De gemino Judaeorum Messia; 
Helmst, 1739, 4to; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes 
Judenthum; Keil (Prof. Lips.), Hist. Dogm. 
de regno Messise, Jesu et app. aetate ; Lipsise, 
1781. On the point that Jesus is the Messiah, 
vide the ancient works of Olearius and Schott- 
gen, in " Hor. Hebr." t. ii. The most com- 
plete work after these is that of Bishop Kidder, 
" Convincing Proof that Jesus is the Messiah," 
translated from the English by Rambach ; Ros- 
tock, 1757, 4to. [For a fuller account of the 
literature of this subject, cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 
444, Anmerk. Vide especially the late work 
of Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T. — Tb.] 

SECTION XC. 

OF THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH WE ARE TO INTER- 
PRET THE LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE PREDIC- 
TIONS CONTAINED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 
RESPECTING THE MESSIAH, AND THE NEW IN- 
STITUTE FOUNDED BY HIM. 

I. Brief History of the manner in which Christians 
have interpreted the Messianic Predictions. 

The allegorical method of interpretation pre- 
vailed among the early Christian fathers, espe- 
cially the Egyptian fathers — e. g., Justin the 
Martyr, Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Ta- 
tian, and still more after the age of Origen. 
They considered the Bible, as Philo and other 
learned Grecian Jews had done before them, to 



be a repository of every kind of useful informa- 
tion, and especially of all religious truth. Any 
truth of this kind which they did not find clear- 
ly exhibited in it, they introduced by means of 
their allegorical interpretation, exactly in the 
same way as the stoics, and many other learned 
Grecians, had proceeded with Homer and some 
other of their sacred books. On this principle 
it was that many of these fathers endeavoured 
to find all the perfection of Christian knowledge 
in the Old Testament, and carried back into it 
the entire Christian system. But in this they 
deviated widely from the mind of the apostles, 
who expressly say that the patriarchs saw the 
promised blessings only from afar off, (Heb. 
xi. 13,) and that there was much obscurity in 
the predictions concerning Christ, 2 Peter, i. 
19—21; 1 Peter, i. 10—12. 

But this extreme was objected to by many T of 
the learned fathers — e. g., Eusebius the Eme- 
sene, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsu- 
estia. Some of these fell into the opposite ex- 
treme, and allow few or no passages in the Old 
Testament to refer to the Messiah. Chrysos- 
tom, Theodoret, and others, took a middle course 
between these two parties. This difference of 
opinion has continued down through all ages of 
the Christian church. Some have seen the 
Messiah rarely or nowhere, others everywhere, 
in the Old Testament; while others still have 
pursued a middle course. Vide Ernesti, "Nar- 
ratio crkica de interpret, prophetiarum Mess, in 
eccl." in Opusc. Theol. 

II. Examination of the principles of the theory of 
accommodation applied to the interpretation of 
the Messianic Predictions. 

Since the time of Semler, about the middle of 
the eighteenth century, an opinion has prevailed 
widely in the protestant church, that the Old 
Testament contains very few passages, or none 
at all, which treat literally and properly of Jesus 
Christ, and that all or most of the passages 
cited in the New Testament are used in the way 
of accommodation. The following reasons have 
been offered in support of this theory. The Jews 
at the time of Christ were very much given to 
the allegorical interpretation of scripture. Ever 
after the time of the exile, when the expectation 
of a Messiah had become universal among them, 
they had eagerly searched the Old Testament for 
everything which in the least favoured this ex- 
pectation ; and had succeeded, by the help of 
their allegorical interpretation, in making their 
scriptures seem to contain predictions respect- 
ing a Messiah. Jesus and the apostles were 
therefore compelled to pursue the same method, 
and to use it as a means of gradually bringing 
the Jews to a better knowledge of religion. 
Their pursuing this course does not prove that 
they themselves considered these passages as 
2E 



226 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



actual predictions. That they did not so con- 
sider them appears from the fact that they pur- 
sued a different course when teaching gentiles, 
and did not in that case appeal to the Old Tes- 
tament. 

But in this statement we must carefully dis- 
tinguish between what is true and what is erro- 
neous and exaggerated. 

(1) The allegorical interpretation of the sa- 
cred scriptures cannot be historically proved to 
have prevailed among the Jews from the time 
of the exile, or to have been common with the 
Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and his 
apostles. Although the Sanhedrim and the 
hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Tes- 
tament, according to the testimony of the New- 
Testament writers, they give no indication of 
the allegorical interpretation. Even Josephus 
has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt 
began, in the first century, in imitation of the 
heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament 
allegorically. Philo was distinguished among 
those in that place who practised this method, 
and he defends it as something new, and before 
unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the 
other Jews; De Confus. Lingu. p. 347, seq. 
Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation where 
he was compelled to comply with a prevailing 
custom of allegorical interpretation; for this 
method did not prevail at that time among the 
Jews ; certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus 
taught. 

(2) The writers of tne New Testament them- 
selves make a clear distinction between the alle- 
gorical and literal interpretation of the Old Tes- 
tament. When they use the allegorical method, 
they either say expressly, here is allegory, Gal. 
iv. 24, or they shew it by the context, or by Dre- 
fixing some particle of comparison — e. g., wffTtsp 
kc&wj, Heb. vii. ; John, iii. 14; Matt. xii. 40. 
But they express themselves very differently in 
texts which they quote as literal prophecy for 
the purpose of proof. 

(3) If the apostles did not allude to the Old 
Testament in the instructions which they gave 
to gentiles, it does not follow either that they 
believed the Old Testament to be of no use to 
them, or that they did not seriously consider 
the passages which they cited as predictions 
in their instructions to the Jews to be really 
such. The reason why the apostles omitted these 
allusions in the commencement of the instruc- 
tion which they gave to the heathen is the same 
as leads the wise missionary at the present day 
to omit them in the same circumstances. Their 
gentile hearers and readers knew nothing of the 
Bible, and could not, of course, be convinced 
from ar unknown book. The apostles, however, 
gradually instructed their gentile converts in the 
contents of this book, and then appealed to it as 
frequently before them as before Jews or con- 



verts from Judaism. This is proved by the 
Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. Thus 
Peter says to the heathen centurion, Cornelius, 
after the latter had become acquainted with the 
prophets, " Of this Jesus testify all the pro- 
phets," &c, Acts,x. 43, coll. Acts,viii. 26 — 35, 
and the epistles of Paul. 

(4) It cannot be shewn, in general, that Jesus 
and his apostles, in compliance with the current 
prejudices of their contemporaries, ever taught 
anything or seemingly affirmed anything to be 
true which they themselves considered as false. 
No more can it be shewn, in particular, that they 
adopted and authorized any explanations of the 
Old Testament which they themselves consider- 
ed as invalid, merely because they were common 
among their contemporaries. Such compliance 
is entirely contrary to their usual course of ac- 
tion ; (vide Matt. v. 19, 23 ;) nor can it be at all 
justified on pure moral principles, as even mo- 
dern theologians are beginning more and more 
to allow. When Christ, therefore, says dis- 
tinctly, Matt. xxii. 43, that David, by divine re- 
velation, called the Messiah, Lord (Ps. ex.), he 
must have believed exactly as he said, and so 
have admitted a divine prediction respecting the 
Messiah in this psalm. The same when he says, 
John, v. 46, " that Moses wrote concerning him." 
Hence it follows, that whenever Jesus and the 
apostles expressly assent to the Jewish expla- 
nations of the Old Testament, or build proofs 
upon them, they themselves must have consi- 
dered these explanations as just. 

Here everything depends upon the doctrine 
above stated ; if Christ and his apostles were 
mere human teachers, they may have erred ; but 
if tney spake as divine messengers, they must be 
believed on their simple authority. 

III. The principles of Interpretation on which Christ 
and his Apostles proceed in quoting from the Ola 
Testament, especially the Messianic Passages. 

Undoubtedly many of the same principles 
often appear in Jewish writings, as well as the 
same formula of quotation, "thus is fulfilled," 
&c. Vide W T ahner, Antiqq. Heb. t. ii. ; Suren- 
hus, Bt'j3?u)j xwroXkuyr^. Wetstein ad Matt. i. 
22, and Schottgen, in s. 89 of his book last cited. 
Now if Christ, by his own example, authorizes 
the principles which were embraced by the 
Jews, he himself must have considered them to 
be true. Whether we must on this account 
consider them as true, must be determined by 
the alternative above stated. The principles of 
interpreting the Old Testament which many 
modern commentators have adopted, differ alto- 
gether from those which Christ and his apostles 
followed ; still these modern principles must 
not be ascribed to Christ and his apostles, but 
we must inquire historically, What were the 
principles on which Christ and his apostles pro' 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 



ceeded? These need not necessarily be the 
same as those which modern interpreters adopt. 

(1) God determined from eiernity (rtpo xara- 
j3oto^ xoiuov) to send a benefactor and saviour 
(Sov'qpi Messias) to bless the world made 
wretched by sin. This purpose was revealed 
very early, and was from time to time repeated 
and rendered more plain. Thus Christ and the 
Epotitles declare, with the Jews, "that Moses, 
the Psalms, and the prophets spake concerning 
him." Vide s. 89. 

(2) God saw best to communicate his will to 
the patriarchs of the Jewish nation, and to trans- 
mit this revelation to their posterity by means 
of extraordinary men, messengers, (o-toor,) thus 
making the Israelites, as it were, the deposita- 
ries of the divine revelations for the salvation 
of men during the earlier ages of the world. In 
this respect, too, Christ and the Jews were 
agreed ; and in this, also, that God had refer- 
ence, in all his instructions and ordinances given 
by the prophets, to his great plan respecting the 
Messiah. 

(3) Consequently, according to the doctrine 
of Christ, the writings of the prophets, from 
Moses downwards, contain literal predictions 
respecting this Saviour of the world and the 
new institute to be founded by him, though all 
these predictions are not of equal clearness. 

(4) But to these prophets themselves every- 
thing which they predicted was not perfectly 
plain and intelligible. God saw best to reserve 
the more clear explanation of the sense of many 
of his earlier oracles to be communicated by 
prophets at a later period. Thus many of the 
predictions respecting Christ and his apostles 
could be more distinctly and justly interpreted 
in after times than by the prophets themselves 
who originally uttered them. This maxim 
often appears in the writings of the Jews, and 
is expressly mentioned in the New Testament; 
1 Pet i. 10—12, and 2 Pet. i. 19. Vide Progr. 
ad h. 1. [Vide the discussion of this point in 
the Bib. Repository, No. I. Art. 4; also No. 
IV. Art. 4. Cf. Woods on Inspiration, Lect. i. 
p. 33.— Tr.] 

(5) The duties and offices of the Messiah very 
much resemble the duties and offices of the Old- 
Testament prophets, priests, and kings. These 
names are therefore frequently applied to him. 
As a king of the house of David, he inherited, 
as it were, all the rights, privileges, and titles 
of the kings, (e. g., of David or Solomon ;) as 
a prophet, those of the Jewish prophets, (e. g., 
of Moses and others;) and as a priest, those of 

he priests, (e. g., of Melchisedec and Aaron.) 
The character which they possessed, and the ac- 
tions which they performed imperfectly, and on 
a small scale, he possessed and performed per- 
fectly, and on a large scale. This canon of in- 
terpretation js held by the Rabbins, and is not 



in any way objectionable. The case is very 
much the same as when the rights of an empe- 
ror are proved by shewing from the history of 
the empire that his predecessors possessed them ; 
or when the official rights of a person are esta- 
blished from the ancient privileges of the office, 
and from the history of his predecessors in it. 
Cf. Psalm Ixxxix. 27, 31—34. 

This principle casts light upon the passages 
of the New Testament, where texts are cited 
from the Old, which appear at first sight to 
treat of different persons and objects. All- the 
texts in which the rights, offices, and dignities 
of the Israelitish prophets, priests, and kings, 
are the subjects of consideration, relate to the 
Messiah, the greatest of their successors, and 
are directly applicable to him. He possesses 
all the greatness, distinction, and pre-eminence 
ascribed to them, only in a far higher degree. 
So it is in the writings of the Jews, and in the 
New Testament, Heb. i. and ii., and other 
places. 

(6) The Jews generally, though not uniformly, 
asserted the pre-existence of the Messiah before 
his visible appearance upon the earth, although 
the doctrine of his miraculous birth was not as 
yet entirely clear to them. This is seen in the 
Chaldaic paraphrases and in the writings of the 
Rabbins. Christ himself affirms his pre-exist- 
ence in the clearest manner, John, viii. 53 ; chap. 
xvii. seq. The writers just mentioned ascribe 
everything which w T as done in the Old Testa- 
ment for the salvation of men, and particularly 
of the Jews, to the Messiah, as the efficient or 
concurrent cause. He led them from Egypt, 
defended them in their journey through the de- 
sert, and spake to them by the prophets. They 
explained many passages of the Old Testament 
in which the appearance of God, or of the angel 
of the Lord, is mentioned, as applying directly 
to the Messiah. This principle, too, is author- 
ized and adopted in the New Testament. Ac- 
cording to 1 Pet. i. 11, it was the Spirit of Christ. 
which inspired the prophets of the Old Testa- 
ment, and communicated revelations through 
them. According to 1 Cor. x. 4, the Rock (a 
common appellation of God) which accompa- 
nied the Israelites in the desert was Christ. 
W~hen they tempted God by disobedience, they 
tempted Christ, (ver. 9.) Isaiah, who saw God 
in his glory, (Isaiah, vi.) is said to have seen 
the glory of the Messiah, John, xii. 41. 

Thus we see why texts of the Old Testament, 
which treat of God in general, and of his works 
among men, especially among his own people, 
are applied in the New Testament directly to 
the Messiah. 

(7) Instruction by means of allegories, sym- 
bols, and symbolical actions, is very suitable to 
men; especially during the childhood both of 
individuals and nations. Such instruction is 



328 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



exactly in the spirit of the Hebrews, and of 
other oriental nations. This being so, it would 
have been a subject of wonder if instruction of 
this kind hau not been given respecting so im- 
portant an object as the new dispensation to be 
instituted by the Messiah. That such instruc- 
tion was given, the Jews have always main- 
tained ; and it is clearly contained in many pas- 
sages of the Old Testament — e. g., Ps. xl. 7, 
seq. The writers of the New Testament dis- 
tinctly teach that some of the ordinances ap- 
pointed by Moses and the other prophets by 
divine command, were designed by God to 
prepare the way for the future Saviour of the 
world, to point to him, and to be types of him 
and his blessings. Sacrifice, expiation, and 
other ordinances of the Old Testament, were 
not appointed on their own account, but were 
intended as images of the more perfect ordi- 
nances to be expected in future time. Many 
of the expressions and images in the discourses 
of John the Baptist and of Christ respecting 
sacrifices and the sacrificial lamb, lead to this 
conclusion ; and the correctness of it is distinctly 
declared by the apostles. Vide Col. ii. 17; 
Rom. iii. 21 ; the epistle to the Galatians, and 
Heb. viii., ix., x. ; John, xix. 36. 

But we are very liable to go too far in the 
illustration and development of these allegorical 
predictions ; and this study frequently degene- 
rates into an idle amusement. The charge of 
extravagance in this respect may be justly made 
against many of the ecclesiastical fathers, and 
many protestant theologians of later times, espe- 
cially against Cocceius and his followers, at the 
close of the seventeenth century. The best way 
to avoid such mistakes is to admit of no allego- 
rical predictions except such as are mentioned 
in the New Testament, and to extend the resem- 
blance no further than it is carried there. 

But we must not suppose, because some have 
made this subject ridiculous by their extrava- 
gance, that the New Testament does not author- 
ize the belief of allegorical predictions. Such 
a supposition is most obviously untrue; and the 
only reason why any have supported it is, that 
they would prefer that an idea so inconsistent, 
as it seemed to them, with the spirit and ideas 
of our own age, should not be found in the New 
Testament. That the design of God relating 
to the future was not always made known im- 
mediately on the establishment of the ordinances 
of the former dispensation, does not prove that 
God, in founding those ordinances, had no such 
design. It was sufficient that he made it known 
as soon as men were- capable of understanding 
it. Vide supra, No. 4. 

These allegorical or symbolical predictions 
and indications are commonly called types. So 
they were called by the fathers, who tonk this 
term from Heb. viii. 5; Rom. vi. 7; 1 Cor. x. 



6, 11. They were divided into typos personates, 
certain persons (rulers, prophets, priests,) who 
were the representatives of the Messiah ; and 
typos reales, to which the Levitical ritual, sacri- 
fices, and other ordinances of Moses belong. 
Vide Michaelis, Typische Gottesgelahrtheit; 
Dr. Rau, Freymiithige Untersuchung fiber die 
Typologie; Erlangen, 1784, 8vo; and, most of 
all, Storr Commentar fiber den Brief an die 
Hebraer, particularly s. 199 — 208. 

Note. — In the instruction of the common 
people, the following view of this subject may 
be most scripturally and safely presented : — 
By means of various religious ordinances and 
remarkable persons among the Israelites, God 
represented and pointed out the Messiah ; to 
these Jesus and his apostles often allude, in 
order to shew that the present dispensation was 
of old designed and decreed by God, and in 
order to excite a due estimation of these bene- 
fits in us, who have not the shadow simply, but 
the full enjoyment and possession of them ; 
Col. ii. 17. 

Those who deny any direct revelation of the 
divine will during the Old-Testament dispensa- 
tion, declare themselves against allegorical pre- 
dictions with great zeal. And so they must, in 
order to be consistent. But this shews that 
their doctrine is not agreeable to the scriptures, 
which affirm that both the Old and New Testa- 
ments contain direct divine revelations. 

(8) Finally, all these observations are per- 
fectly consistent with the principle that many 
texts of the Old Testament are cited merely on 
account of some accidental resemblance in sub- 
ject or expression; in the same way as quota- 
tions are made in works of every kind ; convey- 
ing the idea, that what was true in the passage 
cited in one sense is true here in another sense. 
Thus the text, Is. liii. 4, 5, "he removed our 
sicknesses," denoting spiritual sicknesses, is 
applied, Matt. viii. 17, to bodily infirmities. 
The discourse of Christ, John, xviii. 9, coll. 
chap. xvii. 12, affords a similar example. Cf. 
on this subject, Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk 
der gottlichen Weisheit, th. i. s. 235; Michaelis, 
Dogmatik, s. 122 — 128; Scrip. Var. Arg. p. 
609, seq. respecting rtX/jpco^vat, x. t". h. ; Kleu 
ker, Tractat. de nexu prophetico inter utrumque 
constitutionis divinas fcedus. [Vide also Woods 
on Inspiration, Lect. ii. — Tr.] 

SECTION XCI. 

OF THE SUCCESSIVE DEGREES OF THE REVELA- 
TIONS AND PREDICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE 
OLD TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE MESSIAH. 

Divine providence frequently makes a long 
and secret preparation for great and important 
events, before they are actually accomplished. 
Commonly it gives at first only intimations 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 329 



and distant allusions, but gradually unfolds its 
designs more clearly. We might expect, then, 
with much probability, that the divine revela- 
tions respecting the Messiah would, at first, be 
comparatively scanty and obscure, and would 
gradually become more clear and evident. And 
such we find to be the fact. Besides, the early 
childhood of the world and of the Jewish nation 
was not prepared to receive full information upon 
this subject. Theologians observe, very justly, 
that God has most exactly adapted the instruc- 
tion given respecting the Messiah to the neces- 
sities of men, and the circumstances of particular 
times. The Messiah, accordingly, is sometimes 
represented under the image of a king, some- 
times under that of a prophet, again under that 
of a priest, &c. ; s. 90. 

Four periods are commonly distinguished. 

(1) The first period extends from the com- 
mencement of scriptural history to the time of 
David. In this period there is, by general con- 
fession, the most obscurity. From the remotest 
ages, however, there was a general belief that 
a time would come, in a distant futurity, in 
which God would shew signal favour to men, 
and especially to pious men, in some extraordi- 
nary manner, by means of his prophets, and 
particularly one of them. This belief was suf- 
ficient; "They saw the promised blessings from 
a distance," Heb. xi. 13. 

The first text of this kind occurs Gen. iii. 15. 
Vide s. 75, ad flnem. [Also Hengstenberg's 
Christologie, s. 26, ff.] It was during the life 
of Abraham, and the times immediately follow- 
ing, if we judge from the Bible, that the general 
truth was made known, that his family would 
be the medium of communicating this great 
blessing to a future age. Here belongs the pro- 
mise, Gen. xii. 3, that " in Abraham all nations 
should be blessed." This cannot mean that 
they should prosper if they received him and 
his posterity with kindness and treated them 
as friends, and be unfortunate if they did the 
contrary ; but that this happiness should be dif- 
fused over all through Abraham and his posteri- 
ty; he should be the instrument or agent in the 
hand of Divine Providence. Further, Gen. xxii. 
8, "In (or through) thy seed shall all nations 
be blessed." This cannot mean that Abraham's 
posterity, as well as he himself, should be re- 
markably favoured by God ; and all nations 
friendly to them, and who wished them well, 
should be prospered on their account. But here 
again is the idea conveyed that the great happi- 
ness of the nations should proceed from Abraham 
and his posterity, the Israelites. The former 
passage is explained by this. The word jn? 
may be used collectively here, as Paul uses it, 
Rom. iv. 13. But, in Gal. iii. 11, he refers this 
vy_ more especially to the Messiah, and remarks 
that it may be translated in the singular. Christ 
42 



says expressly, that Abraham rejoiced in view 
of the birth and appearance of the Messiah upon 
the earth, John, viii. 56; and all the writers of 
the New Testament agree in referring these 
texts to the Messiah. 

Another text is found in the song of Jacob, 
Gen. xlix. 10. This is not, indeed, cited in the 
New Testament as a Messianic prediction ; but 
it is so understood by the Chaldaic paraphrast, 
the Talmud, and many of the Rabbins among 
the Jews ; and by Justin the Martyr, in the se- 
cond century ; and afterwards by Augustine and 
others among the Christian fathers. The word 
riW, which Luther renders held (hero), has been 
explained in a great variety of ways. But in 
whatever way this word is understood, the rest 
of this text applies very well to the Messiah ; and 
if Abraham expected such a deliverer, and waited 
for the day of the Messiah, according to the de- 
claration of Christ above quoted, the same cer- 
tainly may be true, in the view of Christ, re- 
specting his grandson, who had the same pro- 
mises and indulged the same hopes as Abraham. 
This texts declares, that " the sceptre shall not 
depart from Judah" (i. e., the pre-eminence of 
this tribe over the others shall continue, although 
Judah was not the firstborn ; that tribe furnished 
the nation with the greatest kings and warriors, 
long before the time of the Messiah,) "until at 
last the nVtf (to be descended from it) should 
come, and to him should other nations gather*'' — 
i. e., many other nations, besides the Jewish, 
should be subjected to him and dependent upon 
him. The best translation ofVrW is proles ejus, 
jilius ejus, especially his great descendant. After 
Sohultens, Stange has explained this word in 
the best manner, in his work, " Symraikta," th. 
ii. s. 224, f., Halle, 1802; though I cannot 
consent to refer the whole passage to Solomon, 
as he does. 

The last text is Deut. xviii. 18, "A prophet 
like me will Jehovah raise up" &c. This text 
is referred to Christ in the discourses of Peter 
and Stephen, Acts, iii. 22 and vii. 37; and is 
probably alluded to in John, i. 45. Moses is 
giving the distinguishing mark of true and false 
prophets, and wishes to assure the Israelites 
that they would not be destitute of direct mes- 
sengers from God after his death. By itself, 
therefore, it might be taken collectively, meaning 
" prophets like me," &c. But if at the time of 
Moses there was a belief in a general reforma- 
tion of religion and morals, which should be 
effected in some future time in a special manner, 
by a prophet sent from God, (the opposite of 
which cannot be proved,) this word may be used 
especially to denote this future reformer; and 
Jesus expressly says, " Moses wrote concerning 
me," John, v. 46. 

Besides these, the origin of many of the sym- 
bolical predictions respecting the Messiah may 
2e2 



330 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



be traced to this period ; respecting them, vide 
s. 90. 

(2) The second period comprises the reign of 
David. A considerable number of texts are 
found in the Psalms of David which may be 
referred to Christ more easily and naturally than 
to any other person. Some of them make men- 
tion of very minute circumstances which had 
their accomplishment in Jesus. These Psalms 
are actually referred to Christ in the New Tes- 
tament. The most important of them are, Ps. 
ii., xvi., xxii., xl., ex. Now many of the 
Psalms from which passages are cited in the 
New Testament as referring to the Messiah, 
may, indeed, be understood to refer, in their 
primary and literal sense, to another king, from 
whose history they may be explained. But 
this is no objection to considering them, as the 
New Testament does, to be predictions of the 
Messiah, according to the principle contained 
in s. 90, III., No. 5;— e. g., Ps. xlv., lxviii., 
Ixix., lxxii. 

Sometimes, in these Psalms, the Messiah is 
represented as a king and priest — in short, in 
his exaltation. The wide extension of his king- 
dom is described ; and the spiritual nature of his 
mission is denoted with sufficient clearness. 
Thus Psalm ii. and parts of Psalms xvi., xl., 
ex. Again, he is represented in suffering and 
humiliation. Thus Psalm xxii. and part of 
Psalms xvi. and xl. The piercing of his hands 
and feet, and the parting of his garments by lot, 
are mentioned in Psalm xxii. 7, 14, seq. His 
death and resurrection are mentioned in Psalm 
xvi. 10, 11, and also in Ps. xxii. 25. 

It was during this period that the appellation 
rr>t>/D (zpKJtfof)— • i. e., king, by way of eminence, 
became common; because the Messiah was de- 
scribed as a ruler appointed by God, as the repre- 
sentative of the Deity upon earth. At this time, 
too, it was distinctly predicted that he should 
be born of the line of David. Vide 2 Sam. 
vii. 12, seq.; Ps. ii. and lxxxix; Acts, ii. 30; 
xiii. 34. 

(3) The third period extends from the reign 
of David to the Babylonian captivity, and a 
little later. The writings of the prophets during 
this period contain many passages which treat 
of the future restoration of the Jewish state, and 
of the church, then fallen into great degeneracy, 
and which encourage the hope that a distin- 
guished reformer and deliverer, commissioned 
by God, would appear, and that with him the 
golden age would return to the earth. These 
blessings are not promised, however, to the 
Jews only, but also to the heathen, and to all 
who should desire to share in them. Indeed, far 
better promises are given in these prophets to 
the heathen than to the Jews; — e. g., Is. ii. and 
lxvi. — promises which have been confirmed by 
the result. In this period, as in the second, the 



Messiah is described as a king and ruler, born 
from the line of David, as a prophet and a re- 
former of religion and morals ; as Is. xi. 1, seq. ; 
chap, xl. — lxvi. 

But the passage, Isaiah liii., is particularly 
applicable to the Messiah. It describes his hu- 
miliation, rejection, death, exaltation, the diffu- 
sion of his doctrine, &c. No other person has 
been found in history to whom this passage can 
apply, although some have referred it to Heze- 
kiah, others to the Jewish people, and others to 
Jeremiah. Vide Doderlein, " Uebersetz'ung des 
Isaias," (edit. 3rd,) where he endeavours to ap- 
ply this passage to the Jewish people. Dr. 
Eckermann (Theol. Beytr. st. i. s. 192) endea- 
vours to shew that the new Israelitish state is 
here meant by the servant of Jehovah. Staudlin 
understands it of Isaiah, explaining it from the 
Jewish story, that king Manasseh persecuted 
Isaiah, and at last caused hirn to be sawn asun- 
der. But this interpretation is forced, and the 
story itself a modern fable. Paulus refers the 
passage to the better part of the Jewish nation, 
which was called m'rn ia?.. The New Testa- 
ment always refers this passage to Christ, and 
to none else ; and all other explanations must be 
allowed to be difficult and forced. There is no 
person in history to whom it applies as well as 
it does to Christ. If we were not sure that it 
was written long before the birth of Christ, we 
might be tempted to believe that it was an imi- 
tation of the evangelical history, and was an ex- 
tract from it, clothed in poetical language. 

The passage of Micah, (who was a contem- 
porary of Isaiah,) chap. v. 1, was considered by 
the Jewish Sanhedrim as giving indubitable in- 
dication cf the birth-place of the Messiah, Mat- 
thew, ii. 4, seq. In Zech. xii. 12, 13, we have 
the lineage of the family of David, from which 
the Messiah should be born (vide Dathe in loc); 
and in Hag. ii. 7 — 9, an exact indication of the 
time in which he should appear — viz., the time 
of the second temple. This passage treats, in- 
deed, more particularly of the gifts, presents, 
and offerings, which foreigners would bring to 
the second temple. Still it exhibits those cheer- 
ful prospects for the future which were first 
realized at the time of the Messiah. The pas- 
sages Mai. iii. 1, iv. 5, 6, respecting the Mes- 
siah and his precursor Elias, are more clear. 

The passage, Dan. ix. 24, seq., respecting 
the seventy weeks has been commonly considered 
very important, and as calculated to carry con- 
viction even to the Jews. But, the passage is 
so obscure, and is encompassed with so many 
difficulties, that it is not so useful as many be- 
lieve for the purpose of convincing the Jews 
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Some 
modern interpreters have even doubted whe- 
ther the Messiah is the subject of the passage. 
By rptfn some have understood Cyrus, others, a 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 331 



ting. Modern commentators have laboured 
with the greatest zeal to throw light upon this 
subject. Clauswitz, Michaelis, Hassenkamp, 
Dathe, Blayney, Gerdes, "Velthusen, Less, 
Doederlein, and Berthold, have written upon it; 
but much yet remains uncertain. Still it can- 
not be referred to any but the Messiah, without 
doing violence to the words. And so much is 
clear from this passage, that the advent of the 
Messiah is fixed to a time, which has now been 
past for upwards of a thousand years. The 
Jews, then, may be convinced from this passage, 
that the Messiah has long since come ; and then, 
from other passages, that Jesus is the person in 
whom all the characteristics of the Messiah are 
found. [Cf. the late Commentary of Hengsten- 
berg on Daniel. — Tr.] 

(4) Fourth period. We have already shewn 
in s. 89, from the New Testament and other 
writers, how general the expectation of the Mes- 
siah was about the time when Jesus appeared, 
and shortly after, especially after the Jews be- 
came subject to the Romans, and how this idea 
was modified by the great multitude, and inter- 
mingled with various unscriptural views. A few, 
however, entertained right conceptions. If we 
had more Jewish writers of this later period, 
especially more from the Jews of Palestine, 
who had written upon the religious opinions of 
their nation, we should certainly obtain more 
accurate and distinct knowledge upon this point. 
Still, in what we do know with certainty, we 
have enough for our thorough conviction. Fur- 
ther : one age was distinguished above another 
in the earnest expectation of the Messiah to 
come, just as among Christians one age is dis- 
tinguished above another in its belief on the 
Messiah already come. Even in the Christian 
church some one doctrine has, at one particular 
time, been made more prominent than others. 
And so it was in the^Jewish church. 

Thus far the^ first chapter, as introductory. 
We have now to consider the doctrine respect- 
ing Jesus Christ himself, what he was accord- 
ing to the description of the New Testament, 
and what he performed for the salvation of men. 
The New Testament proposes Christ himself as 
the foundation of the Christian ftiith, John, xvii. 
3. We shall treat first of the history of Jesus, 
or of the doctrine of the states of Jesus, in chap. 
ii. ; then o? the person of Jesus Christ, in chap, 
iii., (it being inconvenient to treat of this sub- 
ject first, as is done in many systems ;) finally, 
the doctrine respecting what Christ has done 
for the good of man, or respecting the work and 
office of Christ (de munere Christi), in chap. iv. 
Morus discusses all these subjects, p. 134 — 196, 
and has interspersed many excellent exegetical, 
doctrinal, and practical observations, but he 
treats them in a very broken and disconnected 
way, and in an entirely different order from 



what is common in the systems ; and, in short, 
in a manner not very much calculated to facili- 
tate the subject to the student just commencing 
his theological studies. 



CHAPTER II. 

HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF 
HUMILIATION AND OF EXALTATION. 



SECTION XCII. 

THE SCRIPTURAL REPRESENTATION OF THE TWO 
PRINCIPAL PERIODS IN THE LIFE OF JESUS ; 
THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF THESE PERIODS ; 
THE PROOF-TEXTS ; AND SOME CONCLUSIONS. 

Before the man Jesus was raised by God to 
that illustrious dignity (Sofa) which, according 
to the testimony of the New Testament, he now 
enjoys even in his human nature, he lived upon 
the earth in greater depression and indigence, 
more despised and neglected, than the greater 
part of mankind. This gave occasion to the di- 
vision of the whole life of Christ into two parts, 
or conditions — the state of humiliation, and the 
state of exaltation ,• or better, status humilitatis 
et glorise. These conditions might be called, 
with equal scriptural authority, the states of 
subjection and of dominion, of poverty and 
splendour, of lowliness and majesty, &c. 

I. Scriptural names of both conditions. 

(1) Tartswos, Tfarteivutiis, and i'^oj, v-fycd&yjvai. 
These, which are the more common theological 
terms, are taken from Phil. ii. 8, (Etartslvuosv 
tavtov,) and ver. 9, (Otoj avtdv vrcspv^coos.^) 
Tartttvos denotes, in general, misery, inferiority, 
indigence ; and v-tyos, elevation, greatness, majes- 
ty ,- James, i. 9, 10; Matt, xxiii. 12. 

Note. — The word v^ovv is applied by Christ 
himself, in a different sense, to his crucifixion, 
John, iii. 13, 14 ; viii. 28 ; xii. 32, 34. For the 
verba exaltandi signify also among the Hebrews, 
to hang up, publicly to execute a malefactor. Yide 
Gen. xl. 13, 19. 

(2) 2api, and the opposite rtvevpa. 2ap| 
and ni?3 do not denote simple humanity and 
human nature, but frequently weak, mortal, suf- 
fering humanity, and the depressed condition in 
which man lives. They are nearly synonymous 
with mortalis, conditio mortalis. The opposite 
rivsvua denotes what is perfect, a perfect condi- 
tion. Thus Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 50, calls the mor- 
tal body of man cyapi xal a\ua, which he after- 
wards calls ijtiysiov, and aujua -ta.Tt£ivu>0fu$. The 
heavenly body he calls Tivtvpanixov, and the 
heavenly condition of Christ 7ivsv/ia. Accord- 
ingly, the humble life of Christ upon the earth 
is called ay/*6pat tr\$ eapxoj, Heb. v. 7, and j3io< 



332 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



iv (japxt, 1 Pet. iv. 2. The same explanation 
must be given to the following terms, — viz., 
XpttfT'oj £%ri%v$£v, iq>avepu>$n iv Gapxi, 1 John, iv. 
2; 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16; <yap| iysvsto John, i. 14; 
Grtspfia AavtS xatfa adpxa, Rom. ix. 5 ; i. 3,4; 
and 1 Pet. iii. 18. Vide Doderlein, in Repert. 
ii. s. 1. f. 

(3) The term rta^jj^ara is applied to the 
state of humiliation, 1 Pet. i. 11; and the 
phrase al /xeta tav-ta, Sot at to the opposite 
state. For, in fact, the sufferings and calami- 
ties of Christ were by no means confined to the 
last period of his life, but were extended 
through the whole of his state of humiliation. 
Cf. Luke, xxiv. 26, where Ha^slv stands con- 
trasted with eltis'k&iv sis "t^v ho%av. The phrase 
Sofa xai Tfifiri is used in the same way in Heb. 
ii. 9 (Ps. viii.), and Sofow^cu very frequently 
in John, as in chap. xvii. 

(4) The words tsteic*$r t vai, and tshsuccxus are 
applied to the state of exaltation, Heb. ii. 10 ; 
v. 9. The phrase, Sta Tia^ud-tcov (ts'ksiutiai), 
added in Heb. ii. 10, signifies after the suffer- 
ings endured. These words are literally used 
to denote the reward of victors in mock con- 
tests, when they receive the prize (j3pa8elov) ; 
in which sense Philo uses them. Cf. xii. 23. 

II. Most important proof-texts. 

These are, on the general subject, 1 Pet. i. 
11 ; Heb. i. 3, 4; v. 7—9; xii. 2, 3, seq. The 
first of these has been already explained, No. I. ; 
the second will be when we come to speak de 
statu exaltationis. But the two passages, Phil. 
ii. 6 — 11; and Heb. ii. 9 — 11, may be consi- 
dered as the most full. A brief explanation of 
these two passages is here subjoined. 

(1) Phil. ii. 6, seq. Paul exhorts Chris- 
tians to imitate, in respect to their feeling to- 
wards others, the example of Jesus, who re- 
nounced and sacrificed all his own advantages 
for their good. The passage relates to Jesus, 
considered as the Messiah. Mop^-ij ®sov stands 
in opposition to /u-op^ 8ov^ov, ver. 7, and so de- 
notes divine authority and majesty. Mop^ is 
the same as c^jjua, ver. 7. The same senti- 
ment is expressed more strongly by the phrase 
that ha 0eo — equal to God, the image of God. 
Homer applies the epithets ®soelxs%os, dvtfezos — 
divine, equal to God, to Ulysses and Achilles. 
The antithesis is o/Wco^a dv$pu>rtcov, ver. 7, 
which signifies, not merely similar to, but the 
same as, men. (" He that sees me, sees the 
Father," John, xiv. 9.) Christ is the image 
of God upon earth, Col. i. 15 ; Heb. i. 3. 

Ov% aprtayubv r^yr^aio' — i. e., he did not wear 
his divinity for the sake of ostentation, nor did 
he make vain a display of it; the antithesis of 
which is in ver. 3-. 'Ex'zvuttv lavtov, ver. 7, is 
synonymous with etartFivudiv tavtov, ver. 8. 
Kffoj corresponds to the Hebrew pinn ; and pn 



is rendered poor, needy, in the LXX., and in 
Luke, i. 54, where xsvovs and 7ttovtovvta$ are 
contrasted. This phrase, then, is synonymous 
with the one used in 2 Cor. viii. 9, i7ttut%sv6s 
SV v/xds, se ipsum demisit ad statum tenuem — he 
let himself down, he freely sacrificed the riches, 
privileges, and all the divine majesty and glory, 
which he might still have possessed. 

'Ev 6/xoiu)/xarc di^-pwrtcov yzvopsvos, after he ap- 
peared as man, he assumed the form of a ser- 
vant. Indeed, (ver. 8,) he went so far in his 
obedience to the divine will, that from love to 
his Father, and to us his brethren, he submitted 
to death, and even to a disgraceful crucifixion. 

"Therefore" (in reward for his sacrifice and 
obedience) "has God highly exalted him," (this 
is explained by what follows,) « and raised him 
to supreme dignity," (pvopa, Heb. i. 4.) The 
reference is to the name Lord, ver. 11, which 
denotes his dominion over everything in his state 
of exaltation ; according to ver. 10, 11 ; Heb. i. 
4. "That before Jesus," (or at the name of 
Jesus, the name Kvptos — audito nomine Jesu — i 
e., before Jesus as their Lord,) " the inhabitants 
of heaven, earth, and the under-world, should 
bow the knee" — i. e., universal reverence and 
adoration should be rendered to him, (as to 
kings, Is. xlv. 23 ;) " and that all, with one 
mouth, should confess that Jesus, the Christ, is 
Lord, (Kvpwv,) or universal ruler, (ver. 10.) 
Els 86^av ®£ov natfpdj, " this contributes to the 
honour and glorification of the Father," John, 
xvii. 4, 6. Whoever does this, honours the 
Father; for it is his will that all should honour 
the Son; John, v. 23; inasmuch as Christ, 
even now, since his return to God, provides for 
the extension of the kingdom of God upon 
earth, and promotes morality and happiness. 

(2) Heb. ii. 9 — 11. Paul shews that man, at 
some future time, will pass into a happy life, and 
into a perfect condition, although, while upon 
earth, he is imperfect and mortal. This he illus- 
trates from the example of Christ, who in this is 
similar to us. 

"We see that Jesus, who [like other men] 
was inferior in dignity to the angels, (vidt< 
Psalm viii. 5,) was crowned with glory and 
honour, after he had endured sufferings." (He 
was thus depressed, in order to suffer death for 
the good of us all, according to the gracious 
purpose of God.) "For it became God, from 
whom all things proceed, and to whose glory 
everything contributes — it became him (i. e., no- 
thing else could be expected from his justice 
and goodness) to bestoiu upon Jesus the highest 
blessedness, after he had endured sufferings, and 
had led so many children (worshippers of God) 
to glwy, (the enjoyment of eternal blessedness ;) 
and had thus become the author of their salvation, 
{apx'^yos Giotrjptas.) For he that sanctifies (5 
ayid^uv, Jesus) and they who are sanctified (dyia 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 333 



^6/xsvol) are of one race, (or common human ori- 
gin, e| Ivos sc. rtai'poj sive at^aroj, Acts, xvii. 
26. He is man, as well as we.) Hence he is 
not ashamed to call us brethren, (relatives.)" 
Here we see clearly on what analogy the apostle 
argues. 

III. Results from these and other texts ,- and general 
observations on the doctrine of the conditions of 
Christ. 

(1) The states of humiliation and exaltation 
concern the human nature only, and not the di- 
vine nature of Christ. These texts refer only to 
the man Jesus, or to Christ as man. For as God 
he is always the same, (o avtos,) and can nei- 
ther be humbled nor exalted. But the ancient 
writers frequently express themselves incau- 
tiously and loosely upon this subject. Origen 
says, "the divine nature let itself down from its 
majesty, and became man." De prin. ii. 6. 
Gregory of Nyssa says, " xevovtcu q ^sot^s Ivu 
X^prj-trj yivrjtai, tvj av$pco7tlvvj tyvtie t." Such lan- 
guage, indeed, admits of explanation, and was 
understood by them in a right sense ; but it is 
hard and inconvenient, and not according to the 
example of the holy scriptures. 

(2) Two things, as we may learn from these 
passages, are implied in the humiliation of 
Christ, (a) The abdication, surrender, or re- 
nunciation which he made, for the good of man, 
of the exalted privileges which he could have 
enjoyed, (carentia sive abdicatio usus majestatis 
suae.) This is commonly called xhaois, from 
Phil, ii., sxsvugev lavtov, which Luther renders, 
"Er dusserte, or ent-dusserte sich selbst." The 
idea, however, is founded rather upon the whole 
subject of this passage and of other passages, 
such as 2 Cor. viii. 9, than on this particular 
word. It is also implied in the idea of his ele- 
vation,- for he then entered upon the possession 
and enjoyment of all his rights and privileges. 
(6) His submission to great misery and to many 
sufferings. Although innocent himself, as the 
Bible represents him, yet for our good he freely 
submitted to all that distress and wretchedness 
which are the inevitable consequences of our 
sins. Vide Phil. ii. and the other texts cited. 

Note 1. — Theologians have disputed whether 
Christ laid aside the use of his divine attributes, 
or continued in the actual possession of them, 
only veiling them from the eyes of men. There 
were various opinions upon this subject in the 
Lutheran church, even as early as the sixteenth 
century. But in 1616, a controversy commenced 
between the theologians of Giessen and Tubin- 
gen, and other theologians of Wiirtemberg. 
Those of Giessen maintained that Christ fre- 
quently renounced the use of his divine attri- 
butes, and alleged the word ixevaae. But the 
theologians of Tubingen maintained that the 
v*m$ idiomatum divinorum existed in Christ 



even in statu exanitionis, although he never 
used them ; so that it was a mere^p^tj. This 
controversy was in a good measure logomachy. 
The theologians of Saxony rather favoured the 
views of the theologians of Giessen than of Tu- 
bingen. So much, however, is certain, that if 
the person of Christ, even during his life upon 
earth, was the person of the Son of God, (as he 
himself clearly affirms,) it was possible for him 
to exercise his divine attributes. But, on ac- 
count of the work which he had to perform upon 
earth, he forbore the full use of them ; which is 
just what the theologians of Tubingen would 
say. Vide the works cited by Morus, p. 173, 
n. 3. Cf. p. 192, n. 3. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, 
s. 470.— Tr.] 

Note 2. — Theologians generally allow some 
use of these attributes on different occasions. 
Others object that this is not consistent with 
the constant humiliation of Christ while upon 
the earth, and is not clearly supported by the 
New Testament. He himself frequently says, 
especially in the gospel of John, that he per- 
formed the miracles which he wrought as man 
through a miraculous divine power, and as the 
messenger of the Father. The case was the 
same as to his instruction. Neither Jesus him- 
self, nor the apostles, ever alluded to his proper 
divinity in such a way as to imply that it qua- 
lified him, as a man upon earth, to instruct and 
work miracles. He had resigned his divine 
prerogatives, and his qualifications are always 
considered as derived from the Father. Vide 
s. 102. But this free renunciation of the privi- 
leges which belonged to him as God did not 
exclude the use of them when occasion should 
require. Christ himself said that he performed 
his work in comnnon with his Father, John, v. 
17, seq., and chap. x. ; he that saw him, saw 
the Father, John, xiv. 9; his glory, which the 
apostles had seen, was a glory which belonged 
exclusively to the only begotten Son ; John, i. 14. 

(3) Although Jesus lived upon earth in humi- 
liation and indigence, his whole life upon earth 
cannot be called, as it is by many, a state of hu- 
miliation. The passage, Phil, ii., is often ap- 
pealed to in behalf of this opinion. But Paul 
evidently mentions the tfartstnotftj, xivcots^, anf 1 
uopfyr] 8ov"kov, (ii. 8, 9,) as constituting only » 
part of this life. The incarnation is never men 
tioned in scripture as belonging to the state of 
humiliation. It is so considered, however, by 
many of the ecclesiastical fathers; as Origen, 
Gregory of Nyssa; and by many of the Latins, 
as Leo the Great, in his epistles. They are con- 
sequently compelled to assert that God, or the 
divine nature of Christ, lowered itself by be- 
coming man. Neither are the forty days which 
Christ lived upon earth after the resurrection to 
be enumerated among the days of his humilia- 
tion, (^uipat oapjeoj.) 



334 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



(4) The state of humiliation is commonly di- 
vided into five gradus, degrees, periods ; and the 
state of exaltation into the same number. Some, 
however, suppose more, and others fewer. The 
common division and arrangement is taken from 
the so-named apostolical creed. But the object 
of this creed was not to make a systematic and 
logical division, and to determine the limits of 
the two conditions ; but to oppose certain doc- 
trines condemned by the orthodox church as er- 
roneous. The conception is made to stand first; 
but this does not belong to the state of humilia- 
tion, because the divine nature cannot be lower- 
ed ; nor could the human nature before it existed. 
[Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 471.— Tr.] 

We proceed now to treat of Christ considered 
as man, or of the man Jesus, in the state of his 
humiliation upon earth, s. 93 — 96 ; and then in 
the state of his exaltation and glory, s. 97 — 99, 
inclusive. 

SECTION XCIII. 

OF THE ORIGIN, CONCEPTION, BIRTH, AND YOUTH 
OF JESUS ; HIS TRUE HUMANITY, AND THE EX- 
CELLENCES OF IT. 

Jesus was the son of Mary, conceived by her 
in a miraculous manner (cka 7tvsv[4,ato$ ayiov,) 
(Matt. i. 18; Luke, i. 35;) of the posterity of 
Abraham (Rom. ix. 5 ;) and the royal line of 
David. The register of his descent is inserted 
both in Matt. i. 1, seq. and in Luke, iii. 23, seq. 
They both agree in making him the descendant 
of David, however they may apparently differ in 
tracing his descent. Ancient writers did not 
agree upon the method of reconciling the two 
tables. The most correct solution is this : that 
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, of 
whom Jesus was the adopted son; and Luke 
that of Mary. Both descended from David ; 
Joseph through Solomon, and Mary through 
Nathan, who also was David's son. Jesus was 
born in the reign of Augustus, (Luke, ii. 1 ;) 
probably earlier by some four or five years than 
the common Dionysian mode of reckoning, 
which we follow''; accordingly, in the thirtieth 
year of the reign of Augustus, 749 (according to 
Dionysius, 754) from the building of Rome. 
We subjoin the following doctrinal observa- 
tions : — 

I. Miraculous Conception of Christ. 

The scriptural view of the events of the world 
is altogether different and higher than the com- 
mon view. The Bible derives everything which 
takes place in the material world directly from 
the will and agency of the Supreme Being, and 
refers everything back to him. But it teaches 
at the same time, in what way, by what means 
and appointments, God arranges and accom- 
plishes all things which take place around us. 
With regard to all important events especially, 



we are taught, by scriptural principles, that they 
have their deeper origin in the invisible world, 
and that the way is prepared for them by God, 
and that they are finally brought forward into 
maturity and accomplishment chiefly through 
the ministry of superior spirits. • Such, then, for 
a higher reason, was the fact respecting that 
most important of all events, the appearance of 
the Saviour of the world, and of his precursor. It 
was required, not only by the Jewish nation, but 
by the whole ancient world, that great and ex- 
traordinary persons, employed by God as instru- 
ments for the accomplishment of his designs, 
should receive some extraordinary and miracu- 
lous attestation of their mission, and proofs of 
their authority. Such attestation was expected 
at and before their birth, during their life, and at 
and after their death. Vide Wetstein on Matt. 
i. 20. Now though God is represented in the 
Bible as a being high and exalted over all, he is 
still described as willingly complying with the 
necessities of men, as condescending to them, 
and in his intercourse with men acting after the 
manner of men; especially whenever by so do- 
ing he can attain his great objects, their sancti- 
fication and salvation. Accordingly, those ex- 
traordinary men by whom God intended to pro 
mote these objects received his seal to their tes- 
timony in that extraordinary manner which was 
calculated to convince mankind, and to satisfy 
their expectations. In this manner, the Bible 
informs us, was the testimony of Moses and all 
the prophets down to John, of Jesus also and his 
apostles, confirmed by God. 

It deserves to be mentioned in this connexion 
that the Jews called the Messiah the second 
Adam, (as Paul did,) and that they imagined he 
would be born as guiltless and pure as Adam 
was when he first came from the hands of God, 
and was therefore called tov ®sov, (Tloj,) Luke, 
iii. 38. In common generation, as scripture 
and experience teach us, the depravity of man 
is propagated. But Christ is described in the 
New Testament as similar indeed to us, but 
without sin. 

HvBvua ayiov, (Luke, i. 35.) signifies miracu- 
lous divine power, and is synonymous with Svvor 
juj v^U-tov. Vide Acts, i. 5, 8. Every extra- 
ordinary and supernatural event takes place 
through the influence of the Holy Spirit, and 
the performing of all miracles is referred to him. 
The phrases, to come upon one (ETtstavfffmi), 
and, overshadow one (frtitfxiaafi) amount to the 
same thing: "thou shalt experience a miracu- 
lous divine power exerted upon thee ; thou shalt 
become pregnant by this divine miraculous 
power, in an extraordinary way." In Matt. i. 
20, it is briefly said, « that which is born of her 
ix Hvsvpatos ediftv dyi'ou." 

The phrase, conceived from the Holy Ghost, 
which occurs in the ancient creeds (e. g., in 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 335 



the apostolic creed,) is derived from this pas- 
sage (Matt. i. 20.) (This phrase was intro- 
duced as antithetic to the declarations of such 
as considered Jesus to be a natural son of Jo- 
seph and Mary. For he was so considered by 
many of the Jews at the time of Christ, (cf. 
Luke, iii. 23,) and by some Christian sects, as 
the Ebionites. Vide Iren. Haeres. v., c. i. This 
same opinion has been advocated lately in a 
work entitled "Versuch eines schriftmassigen 
Beweises, dass Joseph der wahre Vater Christi 
sey ;" Berlin and Stralsund, 1792, 8vo. The 
author of this work does palpable violence to 
the sacred writers, and has not considered this 
narrative in the spirit of the age in which it was 
written. His explanation goes upon the sup- 
position that the first two chapters of Matthew 
are spurious, and that Luke, in his narratives, 
followed a report which had circulated only 
among a few Christians respecting the concep- 
tion of Christ.) From the New Testament it 
is certain that before the conception of Jesus 
Mary was a virgin. Cf. Matt. i. 23, and Luke, 
i. The extraordinary manner of her conception 
has led many to say that the name of Ttap§£vo$ 
belongs to her, even since the birth of Christ. 
This name, however, is not given to her in the 
New Testament after this event; on the con- 
trary, Christ is said to be yevopsvov ex yvvaixos, 
Gal. iv. 4. When the monastic life became 
popular, and the unmarried state was regarded 
as the most holy and pleasing to God, the opi- 
nion prevailed, that after the birth of Christ, 
Mary lived, even in the married state, in entire 
continence, like a nun, and had no children by 
Joseph. Hence she was called dstrtap^ivoj. In 
the fourth century this opinion was almost uni- 
versal; and Epiphanius and Hieronymus pro- 
nounced Apollinaris, Helvidius, Jovinian, and 
others, who disputed it, to be heretics. But 
Basilius the Great considered it as a question 
of minor importance. 

IT. True Humanity of Christ. 

From the New Testament it is evident that 
Christ was a real man, both as to body and soul. 
He had feelings, senses, and organs of sense, as 
we have. He hungered, thirsted, shed his 
blood, and died. He exhibits, too, all the pro- 
perties of the soul. He attained gradually to 
the knowledge and understanding which he 
possessed as a man ; Luke, ii. 52. He displayed 
human feelings, joy, sorrow, indignation, &c. ; 
Luke, xxii. 42, 44 ; xxiii. 46. Paul calls him 
expressly, dr^pwtoj Xptcrros 'bjcrovs, 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
Men are called his brethren, Heb. ii. 11 — 14. 
He frequently calls himself, o vlo$ -toy cu^pwrtov ; 
the more proper meaning of which phrase is, the 
son of Adam, the great son of Adam, 6 Ssvr'fpoj 
'Adda, as Paul says. But in whatever way this 
phrase is understood, it clearly denotes the true 



humanity of Christ. The phrases, he came o? 
appeared in the flesh, he became flesh, denote the 
same thing; John, i. 14; 1 John, iv. 3; Rom 
viii. 4, seq. 

But certain popular prejudices and incorrect 
philosophical principles led some to doubt, and 
others to deny, this clear truth. Hence the true 
humanity of Christ was expressly mentioned in 
the ancient creeds. 

(1) Some taught that Christ did not possess 
a true human body, but only a bodily phantom 
and shade ; that he appeared iv hoxrpei or $av- 
■taG/xafc, for such aerial bodies were then as- 
cribed to departed spirits, and even to divini- 
ties. These were the persons who believed 
that matter was the origin of all evil, and did 
not proceed from God, but from an evil and ma- 
licious being. Hence, according to their view, 
the pure divine spirit of Christ, one of the high- 
est seons, could not have dwelt in a material 
body. Those who held these opinions were 
called Bocetse and Phantasiasts ; they comprised 
most of the Gnostics, as Marcion and others ; 
also the Manicheans and their followers. 

(2) After the fourth century, others denied 
the existence of the human soul of Christ, be- 
lieving that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as 
the Logos supplied its place. We find, indeed, 
that the oldest fathers had no particular and dis- 
tinct conception of the human soul of Christ. 
They did not deny its existence, but they made 
no distinct and express mention of it in their 
writings, presupposing it as understood of 
course. Origen, in the third century, taught, for 
the first time, the exact doctrine of the human 
soul of Christ, and shewed its importance. It 
was a considerable time, however, before this 
doctrine was introduced into theology as a spe- 
cific article. It did not become universal among 
the catholics until after the middle of the fourth 
century, when Apollinaris the younger appear- 
ed, and boldly denied that Christ had a human 
soul. Afterwards he determined more exactly 
that Christ indeed possessed the -^vzr t v, (animal 
soul,) which was the organ by which the Logos 
operated upon the human body of Jesus; but 
that he was destitute of the jtvev^a vov$, (the 
rational soul,) the place of which was supplied 
by the Logos. Attention was now excited, for 
the first time, to this doctrine ; it was introduced 
into the Christian creed; scriptural refutation 
of the error of Apollinaris was sought; decrees 
of councils were made, and laws were enacted 
against it. [Vide Hahn, Lehrb. s. 95, s. 456. 
Neander, Kirchengesch. b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1060, 
ff., and b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904; Abth. iii. s. 
1170.— Tr.] 

III. Excellences of the Humanity of Jesus. 

A. In respect to his body. 

(1) The beauty of his appearance. Many of 



336 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the fathers imagined him to be the ideal of man- 
ly beauty; and the painters of succeeding ages 
Have endeavoured to express this in their pic- 
tures of him. The New Testament itself gives 
us no means of determining either for or against 
such a supposition. Only we must be careful, 
if we adopt this opinion, not to consider it es- 
sential, and must remember the declaration of 
Christ, rj sap! ovx Atystel ov§ip, John, vi. 63; 
and what Paul says, that yivu>Gxnv Xpurtbv xata 
aupxa is not the thing required; 2 Cor. v. 16. 
Vide Carpzov, Progr. " de forma oris et corpo- 
ris Christi;" Helmstadt, 1777. 

(2) The immortality of his body. We reason 
thus: — Immortality belonged to Christ because 
he was without sin, for death is the consequence 
of sin ; Rom. vi. 23. He was not subjected to 
the necessity of dying, although he actually 
died, in obedience to God, and from love to us, 
and for our advantage. This took place, how- 
ever, not against his will, but with his consent, 
John, x. 18. Hence Paul mentions it as the 
express design of the incarnation of Jesus, that 
he might suffer death. 

B. In respect to his soul. Among these are — 

(1) His extraordinary human understanding, 
sagacity, and knowledge. His whole history 
proves, that even as a man he was not of the 
common and ordinary class, but one of those 
great and extraordinary persons of whom the 
world has seen but few. But he was like other 
men in this respect, that his talents and intel- 
lectual faculties did not unfold themselves at 
once, but gradually, and were capable of pro- 
gressive improvement. Hence Luke records 
(ii. 52), that he 7tpoixoritE aopla. Hence, too, 
he learned and practised obedience to the divine 
command, and submission to the divine will, 
Heb. v. 8 ; he prepared himself for his office, &c. 

(2) His perfect moral purity, and the blame- 
lessness of his life. Theologians call this, the 
sinlessness (jwapfiartqgca) of Jesus. The great- 
est honesty, virtue, and piety shone forth in all 
the doctrines and discourses, in the whole life 
and conduct, of Jesus. Hence most of the ene- 
mies of Christianity admit this excellence of the 
moral doctrine and of the person of Christ, and 
consider him as an example of piety and virtue. 
Cf. Hess, Geschichte der drey letzten Lebens- 
jahre Jesu. [Also the remarkable passage in 
Rousseau's Conf. du Vic. Sav. in his Emilius.] 
The most important passages which treat of the 
sinlessness of Jesus are, 2 Cor. v. 21, firj yvovta 
afiaptlav — i. e.,peccati expertem esse (Is. lix. 8) ; 
1 John, iii. 3, 5, 6\yv6$ iatc, and afxapti.a ovx 1'6ii 
iv <w-tQ. Heb. iv. 15, "He was like us, but 
£Copt!s a / uapT'ta$' 1 Pet. i. 19, afivov apJyiov xal 
atjrtl'Kov. The texts also in which it is said that 
he was obedient to the will and command of 
God belong in this connexion; as Heb. v. 8, 



(which is called obedientiam aciivam^) and 
many passages in John. 

Jesus being free from sin, was free from the 
punishment of sin, and from all that evil which 
men bring upon themselves by their own sins. 
He suffered what he did suffer, undeservedly 
and voluntarily. Vide Heb. vii. 27; 1 Pet. i. 
19. The sinlessness of Jesus is to be regarded 
as a consequence of the fact that he was born 
without moral pollution. Cf. s. 92. 

But this subject is frequently represented as 
if it would have been impossible for the man 
Jesus to sin; and as if his virtue and holiness 
were absolutely necessary. Cf. Baumgarten, 
Diss, de avapiia-tr^ia Christi; Halle, 1753. 
But, 

(a) The scripture nowhere teaches that the 
possibility of sinning would have ceased in 
Adam and his posterity if Adam had not fallen. 
The possibility of erring and transgressing 
would belong to man, even if he had no natural 
depravity. Otherwise Adam could not have 
fallen; for before the fall he was without origi- 
nal sin. The case must have been the same, 
therefore, with the man Jesus, although he was 
without natural depravity. Vide s. 80, II. 2. 

(b) If it should be impossible for a man to live 
otherwise than virtuously, or if his virtue should 
be necessary, it would have no value and no 
merit. All freedom, in that case, would vanish, 
and man would become a mere machine; ac- 
cording to the remarks made in the place just 
referred to. The virtue of Christ, then, in re- 
sisting stedfaslly all the temptations to sin, ac- 
quires a real value and merit only on admission 
that he could have sinned. It was in this sense, 
doubtless, that Scotus made that affirmation 
which was alleged against him, humanatn na- 
turam Christi nonfuisse avay-dptrjifov. 

(c) This opinion is, in fact, scriptural. For 
(a) we are frequently exhorted to imitate the 
example of Jesus, in his virtue, his conquest of 
sinful desires, &c. But how could this be done 
if he had none of those inducements to sin which 
we have, and if it had been impossible for him 
to commit it. ()3) Improvement in knowledge 
and in perfections of every kind is ascribed in 
scripture to Christ; and Paul says, "that 
through sufferings he constantly improved in 
obedience (Ijua^i/ vrio-xor^j^ Heb. v. 8. (y) 
We read expressly, that Christ was tried — i. e., 
tempted to sin ; b'jt that he overcame the temp- 
tation, Matt. iv. 1 , seq. This temptation took 
place shortly before his entrance upon his public 
office, and tended to prepare him for it. It was 
intended to exercise and confirm him in virtue, 
and in obedience to God. But what object 
could there have been in this temptation, f it 
had been impossible for Jesus to yield to it? 
And what merit would there have been in his 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 



33- 



resistance 1 No difference is made in the thing 
itself, and in its consequences, by considering 
it, with Farmer and others, as a vision and pa- 
rable, and not as a real occurrence. If it was 
impossible that Christ, as a man, should sin, it 
would be hard to find what the Bible means 
when it speaks of his being tempted, and com- 
mends him for overcoming temptation. 

IV. Early History of Jesus. 

As the gospels contain but little important in- 
formation respecting the events of the childhood 
of Christ, the apostles themselves could not have 
been acquainted with many credible circum- 
stances relating to it. The apocryphal gospels 
contain a multitude of stories and fables upon 
this subject, especially the gospel ^'infantia? 
Christi." Vide Fabricii Codex apocr. N. T., 
T. I. It cannot be proved, that Jesus performed 
miracles before his entrance on his public office, 
to which he was consecrated by John the Bap- 
tist., The supposition is, in fact, contradictory 
to the clear declaration of John, who calls the 
miracle in Cana of Galilee, apx'h v ^/xtiiov, ii. 11. 

Joseph was a mechanic. Hence Jesus is 
called 6 tixtovo$ vl6$, Matt. xiii. 55. All the 
ancient stories agree that he followed the em- 
ployment of his father, which is very probable, 
since he himself is called otsxtcov, Mark, vi. 3. 
Besides, it was not uncommon for the Jewish 
literati to learn and practise some handicraft. 
So Paul did, Acts, xviii. 3. It appears from 
the united testimony of the ancient fathers that 
Jesus was faber lignarius, tsxicov %v1mv. Even 
in Hebrew, Bhn denotes a carpenter, by way of 
eminence, 2 Kings, xxii. 6. 

But Jesus was also learned in the Jewish law 
and all Jewish literature, although he had not 
studied at the common Jewish schools, nor with 
the lawyers. Vide John, vii. 15, rtwj ofooj 
ypajttjU.aT'a oJBs, \hy\ y-sfxa^xui?. Cf. Matt. xiii. 
54. Probably Divine Providence made use, in 
part, of natural means, in furnishing Jesus with 
this human knowledge.^ Mary was a relative 
of Elizabeth, the pious mother of John the Bap- 
tist, and a guest at her house, Luke, i. 36, 40. 
We may imagine, then, that Jesus received 
good instruction in his youth from some one of 
this pious, sacerdotal family. We see from the 
first chapters of Luke, that Joseph and Mary 
belonged to a large circle of pious male and 
female friends, in whose profitable society Jesus 
passed his youth, and who contributed much to 
his education as a man, especially as they ex- 
pected something great from him, from his very 
birth, as appears from Simeon. Respecting the 
early history of Jesus, vide Casauboni " Exer- 
citt. in Annales Baronii." Hess, in the appen- 
dix to his " Geschichte der drey letzten Lebens- 
jahre Jesu ;" and Heilmann, »« Opusc." torn. ii. 
p. 501, seq. 

43 



SECTION XCIV. 

OF THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS, AND HIS OFFICE AS 
TEACHER. 

The work committed to Christ by God was 
twofold: — («) to teach by oral instruction and 
example; (6) to suffer and die for the good of 
men. Both together compose what is called 
the spyov of Christ, John, xvii. And it was that 
he might execute both of these offices that, ac- 
cording to the Bible, he became man. We treat 
here, in the first place, of his office as teacher. 

I. Commencement and continuance of his office as 
Teacher,- also the names and importance of this 
office. 

(1) Jesus entered upon his office as teacher, 
according to the custom of Jewish teachers, 
when he was about thirty years of age ; Luke, 
iii. 23. Respecting the continuance of his office, 
the opinions of the learned have differed from 
the earliest times. The opinions most wide 
from the truth, are, on the one side, that of Ire- 
nseus, that it was sixteen years; and, on the 
other, that it was only one year. Origen sup- 
posed, that it was three years and a half which 
has become the common opinion, and is founded 
upon Luke, xiii. 7, 33, and upon the computa- 
tion of the passover, especially according to 
John. Cf. Morus, p. 149, s. 3. 

(2) The New Testament everywhere teaches 
that Christ, considered as a man, was qualified 
by God for his office as teacher, by extraordinary 
intellectual endowments ; like the prophets of 
old, and his own apostles in after times, only in 
a far higher degree than they. John, iii. 34, 
God gave to him ovx lx pitpov to 7tvzvjxa. The 
prophets had these endowments, but in a less 
degree; he, as the highest messenger of God, 
had them without measure. Acts, x. 38, typist* 
avtbv 6 0f6$ rtvsviAati, ayicp xai Swaim. Jesus 
received these higher gifts of the Spirit when 
John baptized him ; for he himself submitted of 
his own accord to this baptism, by which the 
Jews were to be initiated into the kingdom of 
the Messiah. John himself was convinced, by 
a confessedly miraculous occurrence at his bap- 
tism, that Jesus was the Son of God, and heard 
a heavenly voice which expressly declared him 
such; Matt. iii. 13—17; John, iii. 31— 33, coll. 
Luke, iv. 1, 14. Whatever, therefore, the man 
Jesus either did or taught after his baptism, he 
did and taught as the messenger of God — as an 
inspired man, under direct divine command, 
and special divine assistance; bv rfvEiWm, as 
the New Testament expresses it. Vide Morus, 
p. 149, note. 

The name of a prophet, (WM,) which denotes 
in general an immediate messenger, and author- 
ized ambassador of God, (vide s. 9, No. 2,) was 
given to Christ, because, as above remarked, ho 
2F 



338 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



taught by divine inspiration, and proved to his 
contemporaries the truth of his doctrine and of 
his divine mission by miracles; John, xiv. 10. 
The Jews expected this of the Messiah, whom 
they hence called so:n, 6 7ipo^>yjt^, by way of 
eminence. Vide John, vi. 14; Matt. xxi. 11; 
Luke, xxiv. 19; Acts, iii. 22; and other texts. 

Christ commonly called his office as teacher, 
and indeed his whole office, spyov, his work, bu- 
siness, (cf. John, xvii. 4 ;) also to typov tov rfa- 
-rpoj, (John, iv. 34, seq.,) in order to shew that 
the Father himself had commissioned him ; ac- 
cording to what he elsewhere declares, that his 
doctrine was not his own, (discovered by him- 
self as a man,) but revealed and entrusted to 
him (the man Jesus) by God; John, xii. 49; 
xiv. 10. 

The name cro-r^p (benefactor of men) is given 
to Christ, partly because he died for our good, 
and partly because he is our teacher by precept 
and example. Both of these belong to the great 
work of Jesus, and one ought not to be separated 
from the other. He himself says (John, xviii. 
37) that he was born and had come into the 
world to proclaim the true doctrine, (dbi^ta;) 
and that his kingdom (fiaaMela) was the king- 
dom of truth. But we owe it to his death alone 
that we become citizens of this kingdom, John, 
iii. 6. His death is always described as the 
procuring cause of our salvation; and our sins 
are not forgiven us on account of our own refor- 
mation and holiness, but on account of the death 
of Christ. 

II. Christ's method and manner in his Ministry ; 
and the chief contents of his Doctrine. 

(1) The instruction which Christ gave was 
partly public, (John, xviii. 20,) and partly confi- 
dential, or private. And accordingly the manner 
and nature of his discourse were different. Like 
all the ancient teachers, he had two classes of 
hearers and disciples ; the exoteric, those who 
were publicly instructed, and the esoteric, the 
disciples of the inner school, to whom he gave 
private instruction. The Jews of Palestine, at 
the time of Christ, were very ignorant, mis- 
guided, and prejudiced. Christ was therefore 
compelled to condescend to their level, and was 
unable fully to instruct them in many truths, 
for which they had no relish, and which they 
could not understand. He could carry them no 
further than the first elements of his doctrine; 
and had, first of all, to endeavour to excite them 
to attention and inquiry. Vide Matt. xiii. 11, 
seq Luke, x. 1, 10, vfilv (esotericis) 8i8ot(u 
yvZivao /Avvtrftia fiaiiteiaf ixiivoic, {exotericis) ov 
SsSo-mt. His disciples were not, however, to 
keep any secret doctrines {disciplina arcani) for 
themselves, but as soon as their hearers were 
prepared for it, to give them still further instruc- 



tion, and declare to them the whole. Vide 
Matt. x. 26, 27; Luke, viii. 17. 

But although the instruction of Jesus was so 
variously modified as to manner and subject, 
according to the wants of his hearers, his doc- 
trine itself was always the same. He had no 
twofold scheme of salvation — one for the refined 
and the noble, the other for the mean and uncul- 
tivated ; but one and the same for all. " Repent 
and believe the gospel" was his direction, as it 
was of John the Baptist. This was the great 
point which he brought to view in all his dis- 
courses before rich and poor, enlightened and 
ignorant. We do not find that Jesus ever with- 
held or omitted any of his doctrines, or even 
proposed them less frequently, because they 
might be offensive or unpleasant to his hearers, 
or opposed to their inclinations. On the contrary, 
he exhibited these very hated truths with the most 
frequency and urgency, because they were the 
most important, salutary, and indispensable to 
his hearers. He disregarded their persecution 
and contempt. The doctrines of his death and its 
consequences, of the necessity of regeneration 
and of holiness, are examples of this kind ; John, 
iii., vi., viii., x. His early disciples followed 
his example in this respect; as appears from 
Acts and the epistles. And his disciples in all 
ages are sacredly bound to do the same ; and if 
they do not, they are univorthy of him. 

Moreover, his public religious instruction was 
in a high degree intelligible, throughout prac- 
tical, and adapted to the necessities of his 
hearers. It was without fear or favour of man, 
Matt. xxii. 16, 46. He was eloquent and im- 
pressive, and skilfully availed himself of the 
present occasion, place, and circumstances ; 
John, iv. 14, 34, seq. The populace, accord- 
ingly, found his instructions far more excellent, 
impressive, and sincere, than those of the Phari- 
sees or lawyers. With all this, however, he was, 
as a teacher, in a high degree modest and unpre- 
tending. Vide Matt. xi. 29 ; John, vii. 16—18. 

Considering the imperfect knowledge of his 
hearers, Jesus endeavoured to represent the 
truth as palpably and obviously to their senses 
as possible, and frequently spoke in figures. 
He frequently availed himself of the sayings 
and proverbs current among his contempora- 
ries. Following the example of the an- 
cient, and especially of the oriental moralists, 
he frequently taught moral principles in apo- 
thegms, as in the sermon on the Mount. But 
he made the most use of parables, which were 
very commonly employed by Jewish teachers 
in their instructions. Vide Vitringa, De Synag. 
Vet. 1. 3. Storr, De Parabolis Christi, in his 
Opusc. Academ., torn. i. 

He gave most of his instructions in the reli- 
gious dialect common with the Jews. And many 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 339 



of his expressions — e. g., in the sermon on the 
Mount, in his address to Nicodemus, &c, can- 
not be clearly understood without a knowledge 
of this dialect. It is the same, for the most 
part, as we find in the Talmud and in the writ- 
ings of the Rabbins. But much of the ancient 
Jewish phraseology had been frequently misun- 
derstood and perverted. These abuses Christ 
corrected, and gave a different, more just, and 
important meaning to this ancient phraseology ; 
as wise teachers of religion have always done. 
But the superior impression which the scriptural 
language and the phraseology of the Old Testa- 
ment made, led Christ to use them, in prefer- 
ence to any other, even where another might 
have answered his purpose. 

We observe in all the discourses of Jesus a 
wise forbearance and indulgence of such preju- 
dices (e. g., respecting the kingdom of the 
Messiah, s. 89) as could not have been at once 
removed, or were not necessarily of injurious 
practical tendency. This is called svyxatd- 
[3aGi$, oeconomia, accomodatio. But we find no | 
case in which Jesus ever taught any thing ' 
which he considered as false or erroneous, 
merely because it might be pleasing to his 
hearers, or agreeable to prevailing prejudices. 
Such a course would be contrary to his own 
maxims and his whole mode of procedure, and 
could not be justified on correct moral principles. 
Vide s. 64, 65. This, it seems, is more and more 
conceded by modern theologians. Many who 
do not consider Jesus as a divine teacher in the 
strict sense, prefer saying that he mistook in this 
or that particular, to allowing that he declared 
or taught anything which he himself considered 
erroneous. They perceive that the latter sup- 
position is entirely irreconcilable with the moral 
purity which is everywhere exhibited in the 
character of Jesus. Others, however, who are 
not willing to allow that Jesus taught anything 
inconsistent with their own opinions, affirm that 
Christ did not actually believe, in such cases, 
what he said, but accommodated his doctrine to 
Jewish opinions, in which he himself had no 
belief. But they cannot prove the fact; and they 
do not consider in what a suspicious light they 
place his character. One that allows Christ to 
be a divine teacher, if he would be consistent, 
must admit his declarations and doctrines with- 
out exception, and will not venture to select from 
them at pleasure what he will believe, or to pre- 
fer his own views to those of Christ, or to affirm 
that Christ could not have taught such a thing, 
because it appears differently to him, or because 
it is contrary to the prevailing opinions of his 
age. See Heringa, Ueber die Lehrart Jesu and 
seiner Apostel in Hinsicht auf die Religions- 
begriffe ihrer Zeitgenossen; a prize essay ; Of- 
fenbach, 1792, 8vo; Storr, Erlauterung des 



Briefs an die Hebraer, th. ii. s. 536, f., and 
Opusc. Theol. Iste Abhandl. 

(2) The contents of the public instruction of 
Jesus. On this subject, and on the plan of 
Christ in general, cf. Dr. Reinhard, Ueber den 
Plan des Stifters der Christ. Relig. 

(o) He instructed his disciples in the doctrine 
respecting God and his attributes ; especially re- 
specting his impartial and universal love to sin- 
ful men, and his desire for the welfare of all, 
respecting providence, and reward and punish- 
ment after death. This last doctrine he made 
eminently practical. 

(b) He taught them with still more particu- 
larity the destination of man and the duties of 
the true worshipper of God ; especially the love 
of God and of our neighbour, in opposition to 
Jewish exclusiveness. He placed before them 
the motives for the fulfilment of these duties, 
and refuted many practical prejudices which 
were common among the Jews and other nations. 
He alwa}^s opposed the arrogance, self-right- 
eousness, and self-confidence of men, and en- 
deavoured to shew them that their virtue was 
very imperfect, and that they deserved nothing 
on account of it, and received every favour from 
the grace of God ; Luke, xvii. 9 ; xviii. 9 ; Matt, 
xx. 1, seq. 

(c) He endeavoured to give them juster views 
respecting the Messiah, and the benevolent de- 
sign of God in his mission, and the new order 
which he was to bring about — in short, respect- 
ing the kingdom of God. He proved to them 
that he was the Messiah, and predicted the wide 
extension of his religion. He endeavoured to 
awaken in his hearers a feeling of the necessity 
of a Saviour. 

(d) He instructed them in the exalted hea- 
venly dignity of his person (John, v., viii., x.,) 
respecting his death, its causes, and happy con- 
sequences. He assured them that he was the 
person through whom and on whose account men 
would be saved ; that he was the Saviour of 
men, through whom they obtained freedom from 
sin and from the punishment of sin ; and all this 
through the influence of his doctrine and instruc- 
tion, and especially of his death; John, iii., vi., 
viii., x. He announced the entire abolition of 
the Old-Testament dispensation and the Mosaic 
institute, and the near approach of the time when 
a spiritual and perfect worship should be esta- 
blished universally. Instructions of this kind 
are mostly found in John. Still they were only 
the first indications : for Christ had reserved the 
more perfect instruction to be given by his dis- 
ciples after his death and ascension. He only 
went before them, and prepared his hearers for 
the instruction which they would afterwards 
give. He sowed, but it was for them and their 
successors to reap the full harvest; John, iv. 



340 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



We find, as a general thing, that Jesus, in his 
jmhlic instructions, aimed principally at the im- 
provement and correction of the Jewish doctrine, 
in order to prepare and qualify the great multi- 
tude for the reception of his religion; while in 
his private instructions, on the other hand, he 
discoursed more particularly on his own institu- 
tions. Vide Matt. xxii. 29; John, iii. 1, seq. ; 
iv. 7, seq. In his public discourses, he fre- 
quently treats of general moral truths; not, how- 
ever, in the common unprofitable way in which 
men are told what they ought to do, without be- 
ing told how to do it. He shews how the law of 
Moses should be interpreted, and warns against 
the false explanations commonly given to it, 
and the additions made to it by men, and against 
the falsification of the Divine commands ; Matt. 
v. seq. 

He was accustomed, like many of the Jewish 
teachers in his age, to travel about with his dis- 
ciples, and to teach in the synagogues, on the 
highways, in the market-places, the field, and 
the temple. Vide John, xviii. 20. 

(3) The private instruction of Christ. 

He had destined his intimate friends (esoteric 
disciples) to be the future teachers, through 
whom his great plan should be carried into exe- 
cution. To these he gave more minute expla- 
nation and instruction respecting the doctrines 
mentioned in No. 2. He solved for them any 
difficulties or obscurities which remained in his 
public discourses. Vide Mark, iv. 10, 11, 34. 
But even this instruction was in a great measure 
only elementary, and preparatory to their future 
destination. Hence he frequently endures their 
weakness and their prejudices with wise for- 
bearance ; John, xvi. 12 — 15, 25, seq. ; Acts, 
i. 7, seq. He tells them expressly that they 
could not understand or endure, at that time, 
many things which it was important for them 
to know. And he promises to instruct them 
more perfectly after his departure, by means of 
the Paracletus, and to make known to them the 
whole extent of whatever it should be neces- 
sary for them to know and to teach, for their 
own good or the good of others, John, xiv. 26 ; 
xvi. 12—14, &c. 

Note. — Although Jesus frequently declares 
that his doctrine is of divine origin, and reveal- 
ed to him by God himself, (since he was the 
greatest of the divine messengers,) we are not 
to suppose from this that every particular doc- 
trine which Christ taught was given out by him 
as entirely new, and as imparted to him by di- 
rect inspiration of God. Many of his theoreti- 
cal and practical doctrines were known to the 
Jews of his age, from the writings of the Old 
Testament, as Christ himself says, Matt. v. 17 ; 
or by some other means — e. g., the unwritten 
instructions of the prophets who lived at and 
after the time of the Babylonian captivity. But 



Christ completed and amended these doctrines, 
made additions to them, and placed them in 
relations and connexions which were entirely 
new and peculiar, thus giving them new weight 
and interest. This was the case with the doc- 
trine of the immortality of the soul, regenera- 
tion, prayer, &c. It may therefore be said, with 
truth, that a great part of all the doctrinal and 
moral instruction which is found in the dis- 
courses of Jesus, actually existed among the 
Jews of his own age. We find many of his 
maxims, parables, &c, in the Talmud and the 
Rabbins. Vide Lightfoot, Schottgen, and 
Wetstein, on the New Testament. 

But while we willingly concede this, we may 
also truly maintain that Jesus founded a new 
religious system. He himself says distinctly 
that the religious teacher must make use of both 
new and old doctrines. " A Christian teacher 
must be like a householder, who brings out of 
his treasure things new and old ; Matt. xiii. 52. 
But Christ did more than any other religious 
teacher before or since his time, by teaching, 
not simply what men have to do, but by pro- 
viding and pointing out the means by which 
they can perform their duties. Vide John, i. 
17; Titus, ii. 11, seq. 

The question disputed by theologians, Whe- 
ther Christ can be called a new lawgiver, may 
be decided by these considerations. Civil laws 
and institutions are here out of the question; 
such Christ did not intend to establish, since 
his kingdom is not of this world. Law must 
be understood as synonymous with religion, re- 
ligious doctrine ; according to the use of the 
Hebrew min, and the Greek vopo$. The ques- 
tion would then be, more correctly, whether he 
was a new religious teacher. The remarks above 
made shew that Christ is entitled to this name, 
and in a far higher sense than Moses was. He 
himself calls his religion, and the ordinances 
and institutions to be connected with it, xaiv/jv 
bva^rixYiv, in opposition to the ancient Mosaic 
dispensation, Matt. xxvi. 28. And Paul calls 
Christ the author and founder of the new dis- 
pensation, (jitscaV)^ xatvrjs 8ia^r7jxy]^,) Heb. ix. 
15; xii. 24. His religion, according to Paul, 
succeeds to the Mosaic, and puts an end to the 
Mosaic dispensation as such. The term novus 
legislator has been rendered suspicious in the 
view of some theologians from the use which 
Socinians make o*f it, designating by it the whole 
office and merit of Christ. 

Note 2.— Jesus always appeals to his miracles, 
and proves by them that his doctrine is divine; 
John, vii. 11. His apostles do the same ; Acts, 
ii. 22. But this proof is altogether rejected by 
many at the present day, or, at least, very little 
regarded. This is the case among those, prin- 
cipally, who labour for the abolition of all posi- 
tive religion, and the introduction of the religion 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 34X 



of reason ; for the positive divine authority of 
the religion of Jesus stands or falls with his 
miracles. The truths of reason which Jesus 
taught would, indeed, remain valid, although 
confirmed by no miracles ; but, in that case, his 
declarations would not continue to possess di- 
vine authority. We should no longer be com- 
pelled to believe in any of his doctrines because 
he taught them, as he always requires us to do; 
John, iv. Our belief, on the contrary, would be 
entirely independent of him and of his declara- 
tions. His declarations and doctrines would be 
subjected to the revision of human reason, like 
the declarations and doctrines of any merely 
human teacher. The authority of Jesus would 
not be more binding than that of Socrates, of 
Confucius, Zoroaster, and other wise men of 
antiquity. Whoever, then, denies the miracles 
of Jesus, removes all that is positive in the 
Christian religion; the sure consequence of 
which is, that every man may believe as much 
of the Christian doctrine as he pleases, and is 
by no means bound to admit the truth of what- 
ever Jesus says, because he is of opinion that 
the doctrine of Jesus is subjected to the revision 
of his reason. To such an one the writings of 
the New Testament may possess an historical, 
but not a doctrinal value. Cf. Riihl, Werth der 
Behauptungen Jesu und siener Apostel ; Leip- 
zig, 1792, 8vo ; especially the first treatise. 

SECTION XCV. 

OF THE HARDSHIPS AND SUFFERINGS OF JESUS. 

I. During his whole life upon the earth. 

Although it is true that Jesus suffered a 
great deal while he was upon the earth, w T e 
should avoid all unscriptural exaggeration of 
this subject, and not maintain that his whole 
earthly existence was mere uninterrupted suf- 
fering. We find scenes in the life of Jesus 
which caused him many happy and cheerful 
hours, Luke, x. 21 ; Matt. xvii. 1, seq. Jesus, 
as a man, possessed very tender feelings and 
warm affections; John, xi. Both pain and plea- 
sure, therefore, made a strong and deep impres- 
sion upon his heart. The evangelical history ex- 
hibits him as at one time in deep distress, and 
at another in great joy. 

His external trials and hardships consisted 
principally in his great poverty and indigence, 
Matt. viii. 20; Luke, ix. 58; 2 Cor. viii. 9; 
the many difficulties and hindrances in the way 
of the accomplishment of his office as teacher; 
contempt, persecution, danger, and the suffering 
which the disobedience and obstinacy of his 
contemporaries occasioned him. The sufferings 
which he endured at the end of his life will be 
considered in No. II. The following remarks 
will serve to the better understanding of the 



doctrine respecting the suffering and adversities 
of Jesus. 

(1) Human infirmities and calamities are 
of two kinds — viz., (a) Natural; which are 
founded in the laws and constitution of human 
nature, and are therefore common to all men. 
Jesus, too, we find, was subject to these, s. 93, 
but in common with all others ; and when he 
became a true man he of course subjected him- 
self to them, (b) Contingent, (accessories,) 
which do not happen to all, but only to a few. 
Such are lowliness, poverty, contempt, &c. 
Jesus, as a man, was not necessitated to endure 
these ; and the very opposite of them was ex- 
pected in the Messiah. He submitted to them, 
because the divine plan for the good of men re- 
quired it; Heb. xii. 2; Phil. ii. G, 7. 

(2) Many things which are commonly ac- 
counted hardships and trials are not so in the 
eyes of the true sage, who is superior to the pre- 
judices of the multitude. And, on the other 
hand, many things which are commonly admired 
as the best fortune do not appear to him either 
good fortune or real welfare. We should be 
careful, therefore, not to enumerate among the 
sufferings and afflictions of Jesus such things 
as would be so accounted only by the voluptuary 
and libertine, and not by the wise man. Such 
things are, his frequent journeys, his being born 
in a stable, laid in a manger, &c. These cir- 
cumstances, in themselves considered, were no 
hardships to a man who disregarded conve- 
nience and worldly honour. 

Religious teachers must exercise great caution 
on this subject. There is a double disadvantage 
in enumerating such circumstances among the 
sufferings of Jesus ; one is, that the common 
people will be confirmed in the error, (which is 
very prevalent,) of considering the goods of for- 
tune, rank, birth, splendour, and other external 
advantages, as of great value ; the other is, that 
the}'' will be encouraged in effeminacy and false 
sensitiveness. The example of Jesus in his 
humiliation ought, on the contrary, to be em- 
ployed to shew that a man of true piety and 
magnanimity needs none of those external ad- 
vantages which are commonly so highly es- 
teemed, in order to be happy and contented ; that 
a man, even in poverty and humiliation, may be 
highly useful to others, &c. The sufferings of 
Jesus, considered in this light, are very encour- 
aging and cheering to despised or neglected 
worth. And the New Testament makes this 
very use of the doctrine of the sufferings and 
humiliation of Jesus — e. g., Hebrews, xii. 2, 
a>l&%vw]$ xatarppovrvas — i. e., he was so supe- 
rior to his enemies in greatness and strength of 
spirit that he disregarded! their insults and their 
foolish judgments respecting him. 

The sufferings of Jesus are eminently calcu- 
lated to impress our minds with ? view of his 
2f2 



S42 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



great love to men. He became poor for our 
sakes, that we might become rich. The proper 
effect of this view is to lead us to gratitude and 
cheerful obedience. 

(3) Some are accustomed to particularize the 
sins for which Jesus atoned by particular hard- 
ships and sufferings, and also the virtues, for 
the performance of which he at such times pro- 
cured us the power. But we ought not to go 
beyond the New Testament, and to make arbi- 
trary distinctions, which have no scriptural 
ground. The Bible does not represent Christ 
as enduring, in the highest possible degree, 
every imaginable distress of mind and body. 
The greatness of the merits of his sufferings de- 
pends neither upon their continuance nor upon 
their magnitude and variety. The sufferings of 
Christ would still possess their whole adequate 
value, even if he did not endure every imagina- 
ble distress. 

II. Sufferings of Christ at the end of his life ; 
commonly called his passion. 

(1) The sorrowful feelings of his soul, or his 
mental suffering, his anguish of heart, exhibited 
most strikingly on the Mount of Olives in Geth- 
semane; Matt. xxvi. 37 — 44; Luke, xxii. 41— 
44. This anguish is described by Luke as great 
to an extraordinary degree. He felt it shortly 
before his enemies commenced their abuse. In 
view of this distress many difficulties have 
arisen. The martyrs of religion have frequently 
exhibited, under greater sufferings than these, 
and tortures which they have actually solicited, 
a joy and firmness which we have been accus- 
tomed to admire. Besides, Jesus exhibited 
throughout all the rest of his life and his after 
sufferings an unexampled magnanimity and 
power. He foresaw his sufferings with cheer- 
ful courage, and undertook them of his own ac- 
cord. But Jesus did not exhibit, either in the 
last moments of his life, or at any other period, 
that ill-timed enthusiasm which was so much 
admired in the Christian martyrs of the second 
and third centuries; nor, on the other hand, did 
he shew any cold insensibility to suffering. 
Both enthusiasts and philosophers are therefore 
displeased with his allowing himself to feel this 
fear and timidity ; and many interpreters have 
exerted their skill upon these passages, to per- 
vert their true meaning. Why such despond- 
ency and anguish j ust at this time 1 We remark 
upon this subject, 

(a) There is nothing in the conduct of Jesus 
at this time which is inconsistent with a great 
man. He was far from that apathy and sto- 
cism which the martyrs exhibited, either from 
affectation, enthusiasm, or insensibility. He 
actually endured therefore, for a considerable 
time, the pains of death which are natural to 
men, as appears from Matt. xxvi. 39 — 44 ; John, 



xii. 27 ; and Paul says distinctly, Heb. v. 7, 8, 
that Christ wished to resemble us, his brethren, 
in respect to the painful accompaniments of 
death, in order to qualify himself better to be- 
come a compassionate high-priest. " He pray- 
ed to God, who could deliver him from death, 
with loud crying and tears." A forced, stoical 
apathy is entirely opposed to the spirit of 
Christ and his religion. Christianity pronounces 
against everything which is forced, artificial, and 
unsuited to the nature which God has given us. 
It is the duty of men to improve and to increase 
in holiness; but they should still continue to be 
men, and not be ashamed of human feelings, 
and of the natural and innocent expressions of 
them. The example of Christ is instructive in 
this respect. But the most important consider- 
ation is the following — viz., 

(6) These sufferings, as Jesus and his apos- 
tles always taught, were endured for our sakes, 
and were the punishment of our sins. This be- 
ing the case, it was necessary for Christ to feel 
that he suffered. He could not, and should not, 
remain insensible. We must see by his exam- 
ple what we deserved to suffer. Some hours 
before his death, Jesus assigned this as the true 
object of his sufferings: "He would shed his 
blood for the remission of the sins of men," and 
he instituted the Lord's supper in memory of 
this great event; Matt. xxvi. 28. This suffer- 
ing, therefore, arose principally from a view and 
a lively feeling of the great multitude of sins, 
their criminality, and liability to punishment. 
Cf. Harwood, Ueber die Ursachen der Seele- 
nangst Christi, 4 Abhandl. ; Berlin, 1774. The 
history of the sufferings and death of Christ is 
considered in this light throughout the gospel 
and epistles. He suffered and died for us, and 
on our account; and we thus learn what we de- 
serve. This history was not intended to pro- 
duce a short and transient emotion, or mere 
compassionate sympathy : and the preacher who 
employs it for these purposes only neglects its 
proper object. This is a great fault of many 
Passion and Good-Friday discourses ! 

(2) The great bodily sufferings and tortures 
which he firmly endured ; with which is con- 
nected, N 

(3) His condemnation to a violent death on 
the cross, and his undergoing of this sentence. 
His life of humiliation on the earth -^uipou. eapxos 
closed with his death ; for the time which he 
lived upon the earth after his -resurrection did 
not belong to it. Crucifixion, which was de- 
signed for slaves and insurgents^ was a very 
disgraceful punishment. Vide Galatians, iii. 
13, coll. Deut. xxi. 23. Paul therefore consi- 
ders it as the lowest point of the humiliation of 
Jesus, and calls it T 1 art? thwart? in distinction, Phil, 
ii. 5 — 8 ; cf. Heb. xii. 2. Every thing was or- 
dered by God in such a way as to convince the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 343 



world, beyond a question, that his death had 
actually taken place. Vide the circumstances, 
John, xix. 30, seq. In that age no one doubted 
the fact. Jesus was laid in the tomb as plainly 
dead. He remained in the tomb until the third 
day, that the fact of his death might be the more 
certain. His burial was honourable. The pas- 
sage, Is. liii. 9, may well be referred to this 
event: "he was destined to a grave among 
transgressors; but was buried with the rich." 
The New Testament does not, however, ex- 
pressly cite it as applicable to this event. 

The question has sometimes been asked, 
Whether the burial of Jesus belonged to his. 
state of humiliation or exaltation. It is suffi- 
cient to answer, neither to one nor the other. 
The burial concerned only the lifeless body, 
separated from the soul. But according to the 
common way of thinking and feeling among 
men, the circumstances of the burial were ho- 
nourable to Jesus, and should therefore be ra- 
ther connected with his exaltation than his hu- 
miliation. 

Note. — At the time of the apostles no one 
doubted the actual death of Jesus. All, Chris- 
tians, Jews, and Gentiles, as appears from the 
New Testament, were firmly convinced of it as 
an undeniable fact. Some, however, appeared 
in the second century, who either doubted or 
denied the actual death of Christ; or who gave 
such a turn to the affair as to remove from his 
death and crucifixion whatever was offensive to 
the Jews and heathen. The death of Jesus was 
not, however, disputed on historical grounds, 
for there were none; but merely for doctrinal 
reasons. The doctrine of Christ's death was 
inconsistent with some of their philosophical 
hypotheses. Most of the Gnostics and Mani- 
cheans, who maintained that Christ had a seem- 
ing or shadowy body, contended that he did not 
actually suffer tortures and death; but only h 
doxrfitL (seemingly, in his seeming body.) Vide 
s. 93, II. The Basilidiani maintained that Jesus 
was not crucified, but Simon of Cyrene in his 
stead. Cerinthus taught that one of the highest 
seons, Christ or the Adyo$, united himself with 
the man Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, at 
his baptism ; that Christ deserted the man Jesus 
during his sufferings, and returned to heaven; 
and that thus the man Jesus alone suffered and 
died. In accordance with this opinion, he and 
his followers explained the exclamation of 
Christ upon the cross, « My God! why hast 
thou forsaken me!" Matthew, xxvii. 46. 

This desertion {derelictio a Deo) has been 
very differently understood, even in modern 
times. The words which Christ uses are taken 
from Ps. xxii. 1 — a psalm which he frequently 
cites as referring to himself. It is the language 
of a deeply distressed sufferer, who looks for- 
ward with anxious longing to the termination 



of his sufferings, and to whom the assistance 
of God, comfort, and consolation, seem to dis- 
appear altogether, or to delay too long. The 
phrase to be deserted by God is frequently used 
without implying a prevailing doubt in the ac- 
tual providence of God; as Ps. Ixxi. 11 ; Isa. 
xlix. 14. Notwithstanding, this anxious feeling 
was one of the greatest and most piercing of the 
mental sufferings of Jesus. At the same time 
it is very consoling and quieting to one who 
comes into similar circumstances, especially at 
the close of his life, since he can count upon 
being heard in the same way. Thus Jesus was 
enabled, shortly before his death, when he saw 
his approaching end, joyfully to exclaim, tste- 
tetftfat— - i. e., now everything which I had to do 
or to suffer according to the will of God is ac- 
complished and perfected ; John, xix. 30, coll. 
v. 38. This term refers especially, as xtypovv 
does in other cases, to the fulfilment of what 
was predicted concerning him as the decree of 
God. Vide Luke, xviii. 31 ; xxii. 37; Acts, 
xiii. 29. 

III. Attributes and Motives of the Sujferi?igs of 
Christ. 

Jesus underwent all these sufferings, and 
death itself, (I) innocently, Luke, xxiii. 14, 15, 
and the parallel texts, 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
22 ; iii. 18 ; (2) freely, Matt. xvi. 21—24 ; John, 
x. 11, 17, 18; xiii. 1, 21—33; xviii. 1—8; (3) 
with the greatest patience and firmness, 1 Pet. 
ii. 23; (A.) from unexampled and magnanimous 
love to us ; also, from obedience to God, he herein 
subjected himself to the will and decree of God. 
Vide s. 88; John, xv. 13; Rom. v. 6—8. 

Theologians call this obedience which Jesus 
exhibited in suffering, passive obedience, from 
Phil. ii. 8, "obedient unto the death of the 
cross." The active obedience of Christ, his 
doing everything which was suitable to the 
divine will and command, was considered s. 93, 
III. They are one and the same obedience in 
reality. The origin and advantage of this dis- 
tinction will be further considered in the Article 
on Justification. The various objects and uses 
of the sufferings of Christ will also be consi- 
dered more fully in the same Article, s. 115. 
Cf. Morus, p. 160, 161, s. 7. 

SECTION XCVI. 

of Christ's descent into hell. 

I. Meaning of the phraseology, « to descend into 
hell,''' (*nsu ; Ss TV, Karafiaiveip si$ afar,) and an 
explanation of the texts relating to this subject. 

(1) The ancients believed universally, not 
excluding the Orientalists and the Hebrews, 
that there was a place in the invisible world, 
conceived to be deep under the earth, into which 



344 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the disembodied souls of men, good and bad, 
went immediately eifter death. The name of 
this place was Sixty, a8rjs, orcus, the under-world, 
the kingdom of the dead. This word never de- 
notes the place of the damned, either in the scrip- 
tures or in the fathers of the first three cen- 
turies. Accordingly, the phrase descendere in 
or cum always denotes in the Bible the separation 
of the soul from the body, and, the condition of the 
disembodied spirit after death; Num. xvi. 30, 
33 ; Job, vii. 9 ; Ps. lv. 16 ; Isaiah, xiv. 15 ; and 
frequently in the apocryphal books of the Old 
Testament. When the heroes of Homer are 
slain, their souls are said to descend to Hades. 

This phrase may then be explained, in this 
sense, to refer to the death of Christ; and so it 
is a tropical or figurative representation of his 
death, and the separation of his soul from his 
body. When he died, he descended into Hades, 
and continued there, as to his soul, as long as 
his body continued in the grave. We find the 
continuance of Christ in Hades actually men- 
tioned in this sense in the New Testament. 
Peter, in his speech, (Acts, ii. 27,) cites the 
passage, Psalm xvi. 10, ovx iyxatateltyis rrjv 
tyv%Yjv /xov sl$ ciSov, which is always referred to 
Christ's death and continuance in the grave. 
The phrase xatajSaCvstv stj S.8tjv does not indeed 
occur in that passage ; but the omission is mere- 
ly accidental. It was certainly used by the 
first Christians respecting Christ as deceased, in 
the same way as respecting other dead. 

(2) But the chief dependence is placed upon 
two other texts of the New Testament, in which 
the descent of Christ to hell is expressly men- 
tioned, and in one of which his employment in 
Hades is thought to be determined. 

(a) Ephes. iv. 9. But the context shews 
that the descent of Christ to hell is not the sub- 
ject in this text, but his descent from heaven 
down to the earth, and his subsequent return 
into heaven. 

(6) The principal passage is, 1 Pet. iii. 18 — 
20. Various explanations are given of this pas- 
sage. In the earliest times, it was universally 
considered as denoting the continuance of Christ 
in Hades ; and this meaning is undoubtedly the 
most natural, and best suited to the words, the 
context, and all the ideas of antiquity. But as 
this meaning does not accord with modern ideas, 
various other explanations have been attempted. 
But the context shews that the continuance of 
Jesus in Hades is the subject of this passage— 
i. e., that it treats of the condition and employ- 
ment .of the soul of Christ after death. The 
apostle is shewing, from the example of Jesus, 
that suffering for the good of others is honour- 
able and will be rewarded. Christ laid men 
under great obligations to him, by suffering and 
dying for them, ver. 18; by what he did too 
after death, while his spirit was in Hades, ver. 



19; (ver. 20 is parenthetic;) by his resurrec- 
tion, ver. 21 ; his return to God, and his elevated 
situation in heaven, ver. 22. The sense then is: 
I the body of Christ died, but his soul was pre- 
served. (Peter always uses crap! and Hvsvfxa in 
this sense; as iv. 1, 6.) While his body was 
lying in the grave, his soul (h 9, sc. 7tv£Vfiatc) 
wandered down to the kingdom of the dead, and 
there preached to the disembodied spirits. It 
was the belief of the ancients that the manes 
still continued, in the under-world, to prosecute 
their former employments. Vide Isaiah, xiv. 
9. The same belief is seen in the fables of the 
Grecian kings and judges. Tiresias still con- 
tinued to prophesy. Vide Isaiah, xiv. 9. Christ, 
by his instructions and exhortations to reforma- 
tion, deserved well of men while he was upon 
earth. He continued this employment in Hades. 
He preached to the greatest sinners ; and Noah's 
contemporaries are particularized as distinguish- 
ed examples of ancient sinners, ver. 20. Now 
that Peter really supposed that Christ descended 
to Hades appears from Acts, ii. 31. 

II. A Sketch of the History of this Doctrine. 

For the various opinions of commentators re- 
specting the descent of Christ to hell, cf. Die- 
telmaier, Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi 
ad inferos, ed. 2 ; Altorf. 1762, 8vo; Semler, in 
Programm. Acad. p. 371, seq. ; Pott, Epistola 
Catholica perpetua annotatione illustr., vol. ii. ; 
Gottingen, 1790; Excurs. iii. (ad 1 Pet. iii.;) and 
Dr. Hacker, (court-preacher in Dresden,) Diss, 
de descensu Christi ad inferos, ad provinciam 
Messiae demandatam referendo ; Dresden, 1802. 
[Cf. Hahn, s. 472.] 

The passage, Acts, ii., coll. Psalm xvi. 10, 
was the foundation upon which this doctrine 
was built. Its simple meaning is, that Christ 
really died, like other men, and that, while his 
lifeless body lay in the grave, his soul was in 
the same place and state with the souls of all 
the dead. So the early Christians undoubtedly 
understood it. The question now arose, Was 
the soul of one who while on earth had been so 
active for the good of men, idle and unem- 
ployed in Hades'? No. Hence a third ques- 
tion, What was his employment while there? 
The same as on earth — he instructed — was the 
natural conclusion, which was confirmed by the 
word txqpvhi 1 P et « iii- 19. But since, in later 
times, Hades was understood to signify only 
the place of the damned,- and since q>v%dxri and 
sinners are mentioned by Peter in this passage; 
it was thither — to the place of the damned — that 
Christ was supposed. to have gone, to preach 
repentance, (xtjpvicsblv,') to shew himself as a 
victor in triumph, &c. 

Such is the course which the investigation of 
this question naturally took. Novr the histori- 
cal sketch itself. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 345 



(1) The ecclesiastical fathers of the first 
three centuries were agreed in the opinion that 
during the three days in which the body of 
Christ lay in the grave his soul was in the 
kingdom of the dead. This opinion they de- 
rived correctly from 1 Pet. iii. and Acts, ii. By 
this representation they supposed, in substance, 
the condition of Christ, as to his soul during 
his death, to be described. Thus Irenaeus says, 
" Christ in this way fulfilled the law of the 
dead," v. 31. Clement of Alexandria expresses 
himself in the same way. Origen says, yvuvrj 
equates yevofxsv/j tyvxty Contra Celsum, ii. 
Tertullian says, " Christus forma humanae mor- 
tis apud inferos (est) functus," &c. 

They differed in opinion respecting his em- 
ployment there, Most supposed that he preached 
the gospel to the ancient believers who expected 
his advent — to the patriarchs, &c. Vide Iren. 
(iv. 45, 50,) Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
Origen, and others. But Origen and some 
others seem to have believed that Christ rescued 
the damned who believed on him in Hades, and 
transported them to the abode of the blessed. 
Still, the descent to hell is nowhere expressly 
mentioned in the ancient creeds of the first 
three centuries, either in the Eastern or West- 
ern church. No one in this period held it to be 
the interment of Christ; nor did any one as- 
sert that he went exclusively to the place of the 
damned. 

(2) This doctrine was gradually regarded as 
fixed after the fourth century, and was adopted 
into the creeds. The phrase xath^ovta sis *& 
xatax^tovia was established at the Arian Coun- 
cil at Sirmium, in the year 357, and at many 
orthodox and Arian councils after that time. It 
was now inserted in the more ancient creeds, to 
which it had not previously belonged — e. g., 
into the apostolical creed, particularly, as it 
seems, on account of the controversies with 
Apollinaris. But all the churches had not ad- 
mitted it into this creed before the sixth century. 
Ruffin says (Expos. S. Ap.), that the Romish 
church did not admit this doctrine into the 
apostolical creed, "nee in Orientis ecclesiis habe- 
iur" and adds, that the word buried which is 
there used, conveys the same sense. The rea- 
son why this doctrine was so much insisted on, 
and admitted into the creeds, especially after 
the middle of the fourth century, is, that it 
afforded a weighty argument against the fol- 
lowers' of Apollinaris, who denied the existence 
of a human soul in Christ. Vide s. 93, II. ad 
finem. It may be added, that the fathers of the 
fourth century, and of the one succeeding, ad- 
hered for the most part to the opinions found 
among the earlier fathers, No. 1. 

(3) The opinions of the earlier fathers were 
gradually set aside in after a^es, especially in 
the Western church. The opinion, that the 

44 



separation of the soul from the body was all 
that was intended by the representation of 
Christ's descent to hell, was by degrees entirely 
laid aside. The infernus was considered by 
many as the appropriate designation of the 
place of the damned, and the passage in 1 Pet. 
iii. as the only proof-text ; and so the descent to 
hell became equivalent to the descent of Christ 
to the place of the damned. Such were the 
views of many of the schoolmen. Thomas 
Aquinas adopted the opinion of Hieronymus 
and Gregory, that Christ rescued the souls of 
the pious fathers who lived before Christ from 
the limbus patrum, (a kind of entrance to hell, 
status rnedius.) So also the Council at Trent. 

They now began to dispute, whether the soul 
only of Christ was in hell, or his body also ; 
whether he was there during the whole time in 
which his body was in the grave, or only on the 
third day, shortly before the resurrection, &c. 
Durandus and other schoolmen understood the 
matter figuratively. According to them, Jesus 
was not in hell quoad realem prsesentiam (as to 
his substance), but only quoad effectum. This 
opinion had many advocates. 

The protestant theologians since the Reforma- 
tion have been divided in opinion upon this 
subject. 

(a) Luther spoke very doubtfully upon the 
subject, and was unwilling to determine any- 
thing decidedly. He agreed at first with Hiero- 
nymus and Gregory, in supposing a limbus pa- 
trum whither Christ went. But whenever he 
mentioned the subject, especially after 1533, he 
was accustomed to remark that Christ destroyed 
the power of the devil and of hell, whither he 
went with soul and body. This induced the 
theologians, who adhered strictly to every par- 
ticular doctrine of Luther, to represent the de- 
scent of Christ to hell as his victory over the 
devil, as was done in the Formula Concordias, 
art. ix. M. Flaccius had represented the descent 
to hell as belonging to the state of humiliation. 
But they represented it as belonging to the 
state of exaltation, and declared that on the mo- 
ment of the resurrection Christ repaired to hell, 
with soul and body, in both natures, shewed 
himself to Satan and hell as victor, and then 
appeared alive upon the earth at daybreak. 
They are not so unreasonable, however, as to 
demand a belief in all their distinctions respect- 
ing this doctrine. Hutter, Baier, Winkler, 
Carpzov, and others, held these views. But 
there is no foundation for them in the Bible. 
Some of the ancient creeds say, the gates of 
hell (kingdom of the dead) trembled at his ap- 
proach — e. g., the Sirmian creed, 357. 

(6) Beza and other reformers understood the 
descent^of Christ to hell to mean his burial. Russ 
and Rambach among the Lutherans assented 
to this opinion. It is false, however; for de- 



34G 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



scent to hell, in the sense of the ancients, does 
not refer to the body but to the soul. Vide 
supra. 

(c) Others affirmed that Christ preached the 
gospel in Hades ; some say, to the believers 
who lived before his advent : others, to the 
wicked also, and that such as submited to him 
were delivered from the place of the damned ; 
almost like the opinion of many of the ancients. 
Even Seiler thinks this opinion very probable. 
He supposes, with others, that both the body 
and soul of Christ were in Hades. But Flac- 
cius, Brentius, Dreyer, and others, agree with 
the ancients, that only the soul of Christ was 
there, while his body lay in the grave. But 
these differ again on the question, whether the 
descent to hell belongs to the state of humilia- 
tion or exaltation. 

(d) Some supposed, as Durandus did, that 
the whole subject should be understood figura- 
tively. 

(e) Zeltner, Baumgarten, (Eder, and others, 
returned to the ancient opinion, and understood 
aSrj$ to denote in general the place and condition 
of departed spirits. So most of the English 
and Arminian theologians. 

(/) John iEpinus (a Lutheran theologian at 
Hamburg, of the sixteenth century) affirmed 
that Jesus endured in hell the pains of the 
damned, and therefore accounted his descent 
thither as belonging to the state of humiliation. 
He had many followers, though he was not the 
first who advanced this opinion. Cardinal Ni- 
coiaus of Casa had before asserted the same 
thing in the fifteenth century, and also many 
reformed and Lutheran theologians since the 
sixteenth century, as John Agricola, Hunnius, 
Brentius, Cocceius, and Witsius. 

We omit the mention of the peculiar hypo- 
theses of some other theologians. 

I. Critical Observations, and a result from what 
has been said. 
Theologians at the present day are agreed, for 
the most part, that this question is one of minor 
importance. Some have often affirmed that the 
passage 1 Pet. iii. did not relate to this subject. 
But all the other explanations given are forced 
and unnatural, and the idea, after all, is scrip- 
tural, for the passage Acts ii. cannot be explained 
away. According to the passage, 1 Pet. iii., the 
soul of Christ actually went to the place of the 
dammd (tyvKaxrj, career csecum) in Hades, and 
there preached to the disembodied spirits. Until 
the last judgment the souls of all the deceased 
are in Hades, (i. e., they are manes, disem- 
bodied,) but in different regions, distant from 
each other, (i. e., in vario statu), Luke, xvi. 19 — 
31. Christ, then, during his continuance there, 
did what he was accustomed to do while yet on 
the earth for the good of men; he instructed 



those who needed instruction, and exhorted, 
The object and use of this preaching, which is 
mentioned in the passage in Peter, we cannot 
see, since those who are in Hades are always 
represented by Jesus, the apostles, and Peter 
himself, as fixed in their destiny, and reserved 
to the day of judgment. Cf. Luke, xvi. 

It will be sufficient for the teacher of religion 
to say that the phrase, Christ descended to hell, 
teaches (1) that during the time in which the 
body of Christ lay in the grave he was really 
dead; and (2) that the human soul of Christ 
was in the same unknown condition and place 
to which the souls of all the deceased go, and 
where they continue till the day of judgment; 
(3) that in this respect also, as in others, he 
was like men, his brethren, and that (4) he had 
a true human soul ; Acts, ii. (5) Peter assures 
us that Christ did this for the good of men ; he 
preached to the departed spirits. The nature of this 
preaching, its particular object and consequences, 
what he intended to effect, and did actually effect 
by it, are entirely unknown to us, as many other 
things which pertain to the invisible kingdom of 
spirits. When we ourselves shall belong to that 
invisible kingdom, and probably not till then, we 
shall receive more perfect information respecting 
this subject, if it can be useful for us to have it. 

SECTION XCVII. 

HISTORY OF CHRIST CONSIDERED AS A MAN, IN HIS 
STATE OF EXALTATION OR PERFECTION. S. 97 
99, INCLUSIVE. 

I. Of the Resurrection of Christ. 

(1) The vivification and resurrection of the 
man Jesus is not, strictly speaking, pars status 
exaltationis, but terminus a quo, as some theo- 
logians have justly remarked. So his concep- 
tion was the terminus a quo of the state of hu- 
miliation. The state of exaltation, strictly speak- 
ing, commences with the ascension of Christ. 
The events which preceded were merely pre- 
paratory. 

(2) The resurrection of Jesus is frequently 
ascribed in scripture to the Father; Acts, ii. 24, 
32; iii. 15. Vide other texts, Morus, p. 174, 
s. 1, note. Jesus, however, frequently ascribes 
it to himself, as the Son of Cod, John, x. 18, 
coll. ii. 19, "I have power Qt-ovacav) to take 
rny life again." He had this power, inasmuch 
as he acted in common with the Father, and, as 
Messiah, had received power from the Father 
adequate to this purpose. 

(3) The proof of the resurrection of Christ 
on the third day is to be deduced entirely from 
the accounts given of it in the New Testament. 
The genuineness of these histories, and the en- 
tire credibility of the accounts contained in them, 
are here presupposed. On these grounds we 
may be satisfied of the truth of this fact, even 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 347 



if no inspiration is admitted. Vide s. 6, 8. The 
following circumstances deserve notice — viz., 

(a) The disciples of Jesus had always ex- 
pected that he would establish a visible kingdom 
upon earth. They had never understood, and al- 
ways perverted, what he frequently said to them 
respecting his death and resurrection. When, 
therefore, his death took place, they did not be- 
lieve that he would actually rise again. Vide 
John, xx. 9, coll. ver. 24, 25. Accordingly 
they were so incredulous on this subject, that 
they regarded the first information of the fact 
which they received as fabulous and unworthy 
of credit; Luke, xxiv. 11, coll. ver. 22—24. 
Gregory the Great remarks, justly and happily, 
dubitatum est ab Hits, ne dubilaretur a nobis. 

(b) After this event Jesus appeared frequently 
to his apostles and his other disciples. Ten 
different appearances have been noticed by some 
writers in the Evangelists. At these times he 
conversed with his disciples, and gave them 
such palpable demonstrations of his resurrec- 
tion chat none of them could longer doubt re- 
specting the fact. Vide the last chapters of 
the gospels, and particularly John, xx. 21, and 
Acts, i. 2, 3; x. 41. Some, at first, regarded 
his appearance to be that of a dead man with a 
shadowy body, such as was believed by the 
Jews, Greeks, and Romans ; very much the 
same as in Homer and Virgil. So Thomas, in 
John, xx. 25, seq. For this reason Jesus ate 
with them, and allowed them to handle him, 
John, xxi. 

(c) Thenceforward they were so convinced of 
the truth of his resurrection that they never w 7 ere 
or could be persuaded to doubt respecting it. 
They spake of it, after the final departure of 
Christ from the earth, as an established fact, 
w T hich was universally admitted. They pro- 
claimed it publicly at Jerusalem, where Jesus 
was condemned, before the Sanhedrim, and other 
tribunals ; nor could any one convince them of 
the contrary. Acts, li. 24, 32; iv. 8 — 13; iii., 
x., xiii. ; 1 Cor. xv. 5, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 21. 

(d) No solid historical objection has been 
ever brought against this event ; nor has any 
ground been alleged sufficient to convict the 
apostles of imposture, because the data for such 
proof are wanting. The event must therefore 
be regarded as true, until the contrary can be 
proved by historical reasons, or until the wit- 
nesses can be convicted of untruth. The ene- 
mies of Christianity have often been challenged 
to produce a single example of a history so well 
attested as that of the resurrection of Jesus, and 
followed too by such important consequences, 
both among cultivated and ruder nations, which 
has turned out in the end to be false and ficti- 
tious. But such an example they have never 
been able to produce. It is worthy of notice, 
that we do not find in the whole history of the 



apostles that any of the most enlightened ene- 
mies of Christianity, even the Sanhedrim at 
Jerusalem, undertook to say that Christ had not 
risen, although they hated the apostles so much 
as to abuse and condemn them. M that time, 
no one ventured seriously to question this fact. 
The grave was watched ; the frightened guards 
brought the new T s of what had happened to the 
Sanhedrim, and were bribed to give out that the 
disciples of Jesus had stolen his corpse ; Matt. 
xxviii. 11 — 13. Incredible as this story was, 
still many of the Jews at first believed it, as 
Matthew declares, ver. 15 of the same chapter. 

To this latter supposition, the Wolfenb. Un- 
genannte has entirely assented, in his work, 
Vom Zweck Jesu, and in the fragment, " Ueber 
die Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu," which Les- 
sing published in his " Beytragen ziir Gesch- 
ichte und Literatur," b. 4, 1777. He looks up 
all possible discrepancies in the narrative which 
the evangelists have given of minute circum- 
stances, although they would not be sufficient, 
even if well grounded, to render the fact histori- 
cally suspicious. Vide Doederlein, Fragrnente 
und Antifragmente, 2 thle.; Niirnberg, 1781; 
Sender's " Beantwortung;" 2nd ed. 1780; Mi- 
chaelis, Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu ; Halle, 
1783. Among the ancient writers, see Ditten, 
Wahrheit der christlichen Religion auf der Au- 
ferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, u. s. w; and Sher- 
lok, Gerichtliches Verhor der Zeugen fur, u. s. w. 

Some have endeavoured to render this history 
suspicious, from the fact that Jesus fridnot pub- 
licly shew himself after his resurrection, and did 
not appear to his enemies. Some reply that it 
does not follow from the silence of the evange- 
lists that he did not. But Peter says expressly 
that he appeared oi; rtavti tct ^,019, a%\ — yjfitv, 
(the disciples,) Acts, x. 40, 41. W T hat object, 
now, would have been answered by this public 
appearance 1 Those who had not before received 
him as Messiah would have rejected him anew; 
and even although they should effect nothing 
by it, they would still have given out the whole 
thing as an imposition. And suppose the whole 
populace had believed, they might have com- 
menced dangerous innovations, and made ar- 
rangements to establish Christ as an earthly 
king. Cf. John, vi. 15. Those who had no 
taste or capacity for the spiritual kingdom of 
Christ would no more have believed in him, or 
firmly and faithfully adhered to him, after he 
had appeared to them raised from the dead, and 
had himself preached to them, than before, when 
he also preached to them in person, and wrought 
the greatest miracles before them ; so that he 
himself would have found the truth of what is 
said, Luke, xvi. 31. 

Persons have not been wanting who have 
considered the account of the resurrection of 
Christ as allegorical. Semler supposed that 



348 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Christ did not physically rise from the dead, and 
that the life which is ascribed to him is spiritual 
life in heaven and in the hearts of men. Others 
suppose that he did not actually die upon the 
cross, but that he lived in private among his 
friends for a considerable time after his cruci- 
fixion, and then disappeared. They suppose 
that when his side was pierced he fell into a 
swoon, from which he was revived by the evapo- 
ration of the spices in the tomb ; without think- 
ing that, even if he had survived the crucifixion, 
this evaporation in a confined cave would neces- 
sarily have suffocated him. Spinoza says, 
somewhere, that the resurrection and ascension 
were not events which took place in the material 
world, but in the moral world — i. e., they are 
fictions, ancient Christian fables, which, how- 
ever, had great moral consequences. Many mo- 
dern writers, and even some theologians, have 
adopted this opinion. Dr. Paul us rather in- 
clines to it in his Comments on the Evangelists. 

(4) The necessity and importance of this doc- 
trine. It is one of the most important of the 
positive and peculiar doctrines of Christianity, 
and is so regarded by Christ, and in the whole 
New Testament. Morus, p. 175, seq., s. 3. 

(a) The apostles always represent this as a 
fundamental truth of the Christian faith. The 
t3(j)^ dyy&ocj, he shewed himself alive to his mes- 
sengers — i. e., disciples — is mentioned as a 
fundamental truth, 1 Tim. iii. 16, coll. Rom. x. 
9. The apostles were called jitaptfupis dvacfT'acfwj 
Xptawov, Acts, i. 22. Paul therefore says, that 
if Christ be not risen we can have no hope of 
resurrection, and our whole faith in him is un- 
founded; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, coll. ver. 5 — 7 ; for 
the instructions of Christ are attested and con- 
firmed as certain and divine only by the resurrec- 
tion. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 3, and Morus, p. 176, n. 5. 

(5) All the apostles agree that Christ by his 
resurrection received the seal and sanction of 
God, as the great Prophet and Saviour consti- 
tuted by him. He himself had claimed to be 
the Messiah ; but his death seemed to frustrate 
every hope. Vide Luke, xxiv. 20, 21. His 
resurrection, however, rendered this belief more 
sure and unwavering. His disciples now saw 
that he was the person whom he claimed to be. 
They were compelled to conclude that God 
would not, by such a distinguished miracle, 
authorize and support an impostor, who merely 
pretended to be a divine messenger. Added to 
this is the fact, that he himself had prophesied 
that he should rise in three days ; Luke, xviii. 
33; John, x. 17. The accomplishment of this 
prophecy proves that Christ did not teach in his 
own name, but as the messenger of God ; as he 
often said; John, viii.— x. The following are 
the most important texts relating to this point — 
viz., Romans, i. 4 ; Acts, xvii. 31 ; 1 Tim. iii. 
16. The passage, Ps. ii. 7, * Thou art my Son, 



this day have I begotten thee," is often referred 
in the New Testament directly to the resurrec- 
tion. " I have declared thee (by raising thee 
to life) on this day (the day of the resurrection) 
to be the Messiah," Acts, xiii. 33, 34. 

II. The Ascension of Christ. 

(1) Jesus spent forty days on earth after his 
resurrection, in order to render his disciples 
more sure of the fact, to teach them many im- 
portant things, and to prepare them for the dis- 
charge of their public office. Vide the last 
chapters of the evangelists, and Acts, i. After- 
wards, he was removed to the abodes of the 
blessed. These abodes are situated in regions 
invisible to men, at a distance from the earth, 
and inaccessible to us while we continue here. 
They cannot be better described than by the 
word heaven, which almost all people and lan- 
guages have, and which the sacred writers fre- 
quently employ. As they use it, it denotes the 
place of the highest sanctuary of God — i. e., 
the place where the Omnipresent Being reveals 
himself with peculiar glory. Cf. John, xlv. 2, 3. 

Jesus was taken up from earth in view 
of his apostles, and borne hence, (Irtijp^, ws- 
hrflfeq sis ovpavov,) Acts, i. 9 — 11; 1 Pet. iii. 
22; Heb. ix. 10, 11, 24. He ascended from 
Bethany on the Mount of Olives, Luke, xxiv. 
51. He predicted his ascension to his disci- 
ples; John, vi. 62; xiv. 2, 3. This doctrine, 
like that of the resurrection, is enumerated 
among the fundamental truths of Christianity, 
1 Tim. iii. 16, (ws%r$&i iv S6|^ ;) 1 Pet. iii. 
22. He taught his disciples to find in all these 
events confirmation of his declarations* and joy 
and consolation. As he had risen, the first 
that arose from the dead, and had been trans- 
lated to heaven, they too should one day arise, 
and be glorified, if they reposed faith and con- 
fidence in him. They should be with him 
where he was, at home, in the house of his 
Father, fcc. 

Note. — Some modern writers have endea- 
voured to awaken suspicion respecting the doc- 
trine of the ascension of Christ, from the fact 
that Matthew, Luke, and John do not expressly 
narrate this history of the ascension in their 
gospels, as Mark does in his, and as Luke does 
in the Acts. But they could not have been 
ignorant or doubtful respecting this event, any 
more than the other writers of the New Tes- 
tament ; since Jesus had mentioned it in his 
early instructions, according to John, vi. 62, 
and had frequently alluded to it afterwards. 
The writings of Paul, Peter, and the Acts *>* 
the Apostles written by Luke, shew how uni- 
versal was the belief of this event among the 
first Christian teachers. And how could these 
two have been exceptions'? Vide the Essays, 
" Warum haben nicht alle Evangrelistta die 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 349 



Himelfahrt Christi ausdriicklich miterzahlt? 
in Flatt's Magazin, Stiick 8, Tubingen, 1802, 
Num. 2. 

(2) According to the clear declarations of the 
New Testament, Christ lives in the abodes of 
the blessed, as a true man. Cf. Acts, i. 11 ; 
xvii. 31 ; Heb. ix. 10, seq. Vide his appear- 
ances in the Acts. But the saints in heaven do 
not have a gross, feeble, perishable body, like 
the human body which we possess upon the 
earth; but a more perfect, imperishable, glori- 
fied body, very much like that of the gods of 
Homer and the Grecians. 1 Cor. xv. coll. s. 
152. New Jesus received such a body in hea- 
ven, as we shall one day receive; Phil. iii. 21 
— gu/ao, 86^ (i. e., avSo%ov) avtov, which our 
present earthly body (cfw^ua tartslvoGscos) will in 
future resemble. The same doctrine is carried 
out, 1 Cor. xv. 42 — 53. As inhabitants of 
of earth, men have a mortal body, like Adam ; 
as inhabitants of heaven, a refined and immor- 
tal body, like Christ, the second Adam. Christ, 
however, did not receive this body immediately 
on his resurrection ; but when he became an 
inhabitant of heaven. During the forty days 
which succeeded his resurrection, he ate and 
drank with his disciples — actions which cannot 
be predicated of heavenly bodies. He bore, 
too, on his body the scars and marks of the 
crucifixion. Some few have supposed that he 
then possessed a spiritual body, from a misun- 
derstanding of the words ^rptov xsx%£tG/xsvcov, 
John, xx. 19, 26. The declaration in the epis- 
tle to the Hebrews, that he offers to God, as 
High-priest, his own blood, in the holy of holies, 
shews that the same Jesus, who according to 
the divine decree died on the earth for our good, 
now lives in heaven, and that we may always 
rejoice in the happy consequences of his sacri- 
fice; Heb. ix. 14, 24, seq. 

Note. — The dispute relative to the Lord's 
supper has occasioned much controversy since 
the sixteenth century, respecting the omnipre- 
sence of the body of Christ, which was asserted 
by many Lutheran theologians. But the doctrine 
de omnipreseniia or ubiquitate of the human body 
of Christ, is a mere hypothesis of some theolo- 
gians, without any sure scriptural support. In- 
deed, those divine attributes, which, from the 
nature of the case, cannot be predicated of body 
in general, cannot be ascribed to the body of 
Christ, although it be glorified. Besides, we 
are expressly assured that we shall in future 
receive a body of the same kind as the heavenly 
body of Christ, Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 49. 
Finally, this doctrine is not necessary for the 
defence of the Lutheran doctrine respecting the 
Lord's supper. Vide infra respecting this doc- 
trine. 

(3) There has always been a great diversity 



of opinions on the question, How long Christ, 
as a man, will continue in heaven, and when, 
according to his promise, he will return and 
visibly reappear on the earth. Christ himself 
has promised no other visible return than that 
at the end of the world, as the Judge of men. 
For his rtapovala to destroy Jerusalem, and 
punish his enemies, is a figurative mode of 
speech, like the adventus Dei so often spoken 
of by the prophets. But many of the early 
Christians, who were inclined to Judaism, and 
expected the establishment of an earthly king- 
dom, explained many texts in accordance with 
such an opinion, although there is not one pas- 
sage in all the writings of the apostles distinct- 
ly in favour of it. The apostles always sup- 
posed that Christ would remain in heaven until 
the end of the world, (during the whole time 
of the New-Testament dispensation,) and not 
visibly return until that time; although they 
did not undertake to determine how long this 
period would continue. Vide Acts, i. 11; 
1 Thess. i. 10, coll. 2 Thess. ii. seq. 

Here belongs that remarkable passage in the 
speech of Peter, Acts, iii. 20, 21, which has 
been so often misunderstood and referred to the 
restoration of ail things. "God has caused 
the joyful times of the New Testament to ap- 
pear, (xaipol ai>a^v%ei*$, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 2,) and 
has sent Jesus Christ, whom now the heaven 
hath again received, or still retains, as long as 
this happy period of the New Testament (the 
new dispensation upon the earth) shall continue ." 
Here, then, is no promise that Christ will re- 
turn to found an earthly kingdom. As'iao^at, 
when spoken of a place, always means, accord- 
ing to a Greek idiom, that the place receives or 
retains any one. So all the ancient interpreters, 
and Beza, who denied the omnipresence of the 
body of Christ from this passage. For this 
reason the Lutheran theologians have preferred 
to refer fo'fjac&ac to Christ. The %$ovoi artoxa- 
T'acfT'acyacoj are, the times of the New Testament, 
like %p6voo Stop^-iotffwj, Heb. ix. 10. Vide ver. 
20. And a^pt- signifies not until, but dum, 
while, during ; a^ptj u^jUfpov xaXtliai, Heb. 
iii. 13. Vide Ernesti, Program, ad. h. 1. in 
Opusc. Theol. p. 483, seq. 

Note. — It was intended to teach men by this 
event, to regard Christ, even in his human na- 
ture, as henceforth standing in the closest con- 
nexion with God — as in the possession and 
enjoyment of supreme felicity and power, and 
as the Ruler and Lord, whose agency and influ- 
ence were unlimited. The description of Goc, 
as dwelling in heaven, suggests the idea of his 
supremacy over all the inhabitants and events 
of the world, his controlling providence, bound- 
less reign, and perfect enjoyment. Morus, p. 
177, not. extr. 



2G 



350 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION XCVIII. 

WHEREIN THE HEAVENLY GLORY OR MAJESTY 
OF CHRIST, AS A MAN, CONSISTS; AND THE 
SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF THE KINGDOM AND DO- 
MINION OF CHRIST. 

I. Scriptural designation of the Glory of Christ. 

The imperfection and inferiority which Christ 
had voluntarily assumed during his life upon 
earth ceased immediately on his ascension. He 
now became, even as a man, immortal and 
blessed; Rom. vi. 9, 10; Heb. vii. 16, 25. 
Even in his human nature he was raised by God 
to a very illustrious dignity; John, xvii. 6, 
(Sola, Salc&jjwu,) Acts, ii. 33—36 ; Eph. i. 20, 
seq. ; Col. i. 17. "Ovo/xa vrtep Ttav ovofia, Phil. 
ii. 9, 10. He is entitled to honour from every 
being, even from the higher intelligences, Heb. 
i. 6; Phil. ii. 9, 10; since he is henceforth 
raised in glory and majesty above all, 1 Pet. iii. 
22. Hence a kingdom is ascribed to him, over 
which he reigns in heaven. He is called King, 
and divinely appointed Lord; 6 Kvptos, Acts, ii. 
36 ; and Kvptoj 56^?, especially by Paul, 1 Cor. 
ii. 8, (i. e.,the glorious, adorable Lord, ^i33n Tt^r, 
Ps. xxiv. 7, 8.) In Heb. i. 9, Paul applies 
to Christ the passage, Ps. lxv. 8, " God hath 
anointed thee with the oil of joy above thy fel- 
lows" — i. e., God honours thee more, and gives 
thee more privileges, than all the partners of thy 
dignity — the other kings, or sons of God. 

Note. — Various other appellations are applied 
in the New Testament to Christ, descriptive 
partly of his supremacy, and partly of his care 
for the church as its head. Among these are 
the following — viz., KeqxxXrj, the Christian 
church being often compared with a body, Eph. 
i. 22, 23 ; v. 23 ; dv«jp, maritus, 2 Cor. xi. 2 ; 
and vv/xq>i.o$, John, iii. 29. Also the appellation 
of a shepherd, and the comparisons taken from 
it, John, x. 12. So Christ is called by Paul, 
7toofiiva tbv /.tiyav, Heb. xiii. 20, and dp^trtot/^v, 
1 Pet. v. 4. This is a very honourable appella- 
tion, since kings were called shepherds by the He- 
brews, Ps. lxxx. 2, seq., like the 7toi[xiv£? Uwj» 
of Homer. We must understand, however, by 
this appellation, a pastoral prince, such perhaps 
as Abraham was, and the orientalists frequently 
were ; the proprietor and owner of the herds, 
who had servants in his employment as under 
shepherds. 

II. The Nature and Extent of the Kingdom of 
Christ, the Administration of his Reign which 
he carries on from Heaven. 

Cf. Ncesselt, Diss. " de Christo homine reg- 
nante," Opusc. torn, ii.; Halle, 1773; and the 
programm, " De Christo ad dextram Dei se- 
dente," p. 10, seq.; Halle, 1787. There are 
some good remarks, together with many very 



unfounded ones, in Dr. Eckermann's Essay, 
Ueber die Begriffe vom Reiche und der Wieder- 
kunft Christi, in his Theologischen Beytragen, 
b. ii. st. I; Altona, 1891, 8vo. Morus treat? 
this subject admirably, p. 178, seq. 

(1) The terms which signify rule are some- 
times used figuratively, and denote, a joyful 
situation, happy, and honourable in an uncom- 
mon degree — -freedom, independence, authority ; 
in short, every kind of distinguished happiness 
and welfare. Thus the stoic paradox; "omnem 
sapientem regnare, sive esse regent ,•" and Cicero : 
" olim cum regnare existimabamur." In this 
sense, Christians are called kings, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; 
Rev. i. 6. They are said 6v/xl3a<3i%£ve<,v tip 
Xptfj-rci, to share with Christ the royal privileges^ 
2 Tim. ii. 12. In the parallel passage, Rom. 
viii. 17, they are said aw8o^a^vai. They are 
said, also, x%rjpovo/xdv fiaoiTisiav, Matt. xxv. 34; 
and fSaiHtevsiv iv ^u^, Rom. v. 17. According- 
ly, when Christ is said to reign, his life in hea- 
ven may be intended. But this phrase applied 
to him is not confined to this meaning; it sig- 
nifies something far more great and elevated 
than all this, as will appear from the following 
remarks. 

(2) The kingdom of Christ, according to the 
doctrine of the New Testament, is of very wide 
extent. 

A. It extends over everything in all the uni- 
verse. " All power in heaven and on earth is 
given to me," Matt, xxviii. 18. 'O 7tatr t p rtdvta 
8i8ioxsv ftj 2?tpaj avT'oi, x. ■?. %., John, xiii. 3. 
God exalted him, even as a man, above every- 
thing which is great and powerful in the mate- 
rial and spiritual world, in order that he might 
rule over them ; and subjected to him even the 
different orders and classes of good and bad 
spirits. Christ reigns over them as Lord, Phil, 
ii. 9—11; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. i. 15—17; 
Heb. i. 4—14; 1 Pet. iii. 22. The ground 
and object of such an extensive rule is this : — 
There are many things both in the material and 
spiritual world which operate to the advantage 
or disadvantage of men. Now, if men are to 
be peculiarly the subjects over whom Christ is 
to reign as king ; if to promote their welfare 
and to shield them from all harm; if to punish 
his own enemies and the enemies of his king- 
dom, and to bless and reward his followers, are 
to be his peculiar concern ; — he must be able to 
control all these other objects. For, 

B. The reign or government of Jesus, as 
Christ or Messiah, has a principal respect to the 
human race. He exerts his authority on account 
of men, and for their advantage. This kingdom 
is twofold, — viz., 

(a) Regnum sensu latiori. Since the time 
when Christ was received mto heaven, (Eph. 
i. 20,) he has reigned over all men, whether 
they know and honour him or not — i. e., he pro- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 351 



vides for them all that spiritual welfare and true 
happiness of which they are capable. He re- 
ceived from the Father right and power over the 
human race, John, xvii. 2; Matt, xxviii. 18; 
Eph. i. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 1. 

(b) Regnum sensu stridiori sive angustiori, ex- 
tends over his worshippers, who know and love 
him ; over the whole society (IxxXrpla, Snp) of 
those who are united, not by external power and 
compulsion, but by the power of truth and by 
instruction. This community is therefore called, 
in the discourses of Jesus, J3a<j£.tat'a ®eoi> sive 
ovpavov, Eph. v. 5; Col. i. 13. Over this com- 
munity he exercises the most special watch- 
fulness and care. Its members, when faithful- 
ly devoted and obedient to him, are his rCpojSata 
ISt-a. The foundation was laid and the begin- 
ning made in this community during the life of 
Christ on earth. From the time of John it suf- 
fered violence, Matt. xi. 12. But the beginning 
was small, and, in comparison with what after- 
wards took place, unobserved by the great mul- 
titude; ovx epx^tau /xsta rtapotfjfp^tfaos, Luke, 
xvii. 20. This kingdom was not extended and 
widened till after the ascension. 

(3) The manner in which Christ governs or 
rules his kingdom. He reigns as catty, Eph. 
v. 23—29. 

A. Now, during the continuance of the pre- 
sent state of the world, 

(a) By instruction in the truth, John, xviii. 
37. At his departure from the world he com- 
mitted this instruction to his disciples, and espe- 
cially to his apostles as his ambassadors, that 
they might communicate it everywhere, without 
regard to nation or kindred, Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20. 
It was to be more extensively diffused and 
widely propagated by means of other teachers, 
appointed by the apostles under the guidance 
and authority of Christ, Eph. iv. 11, 15, 16. 
Accordingly, in the passages mentioned, Paul 
derives the qualifications and the ministry (#a- 
P l J> ^ap/tytai'a) of teachers from Christ himself, 
as Christ also himself does, John, x. 1, seq. 

(6) By that support, help, and assistance 
which he imparts to his church, his special con- 
cern in its extension, and the frustration of the 
designs of its enemies, Matt, xxviii. 20; 1 Cor. 
xv. 25, 26 ; 1 John, iv. 4 ; v. 4, 5. 

Note — All the hindrances which stand in the 
way of the extension of Christianity, and the 
success of the designs of Christ to promote hu- 
man happiness, are frequently called e^pot 
'Xpiotov. This term is borrowed from Psalm 
ex. 2. Morus has enumerated these hindrances, 
as presented in the scriptures, p. 180, seq., s. 6. 
Christ has already removed these hindrances 
in a measure ; he is constantly diminishing 
them, and at the end of the present dispensation 
will have entirely surmounted them. Ps. ex. 
1, 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25. Morus, p. 181, seq., s. 7. 



B. In future, when the present state of the 
world shall cease, (at which time the greatest 
revolutions will take place in the whole uni- 
verse, 2 Pet. iii. 7, 10—13.) Then, and not be- 
fore, will Christ exhibit himself in all his glory, 
as Lord of the human race. Paul says, express- 
ly, that all the glory of Christ is not now dis- 
played, Heb. ii. 8; Col. iii. 3, 4; for all have 
not yet acknowledged him as Lord, and his ene- 
mies have still power to harm. But then his 
glory will become visible, 1 Cor. xv. 26, 27; 
Heb. x. 13. Christ will solemnly and visibly 
reappear on the earth, Acts, i. 11 ; 1 Tbess. iv. 
16 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 13 ; Heb. ix. 28; Col. iii. 4. 
He will raise the dead, John, v, 21- — 23; Mat- 
thew, xxv. He will sit in judgment upon the 
dead and the living, 1 Cor. xv. 26, 27 ; Rom. 
xiv. 10; Phil. ii. 10; and will allot rewards 
and punishments, John, v. 21 — 23, 27, seq. ; 
Matt. xxv. ; Acts, xvii. 31. According to the 
doctrine of the universality of Christ's kingdom, 
he will judge, not Christians only, but all men. 
Cf. the passages above cited, and Acts, xvii. 
31 ; Romans, ii. 6, 7. But the time of this judg- 
ment is unknown, and was so even to the apos- 
tles, 1 Thess. v. 1, seq. coll. 2 Thess. ii. 3. 
Many of the early Christians, however, appear 
to have supposed that it was near at hand, and 
was connected with the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem and the temple, which was also called 7ta- 
povaia Xpoatov. For the Jews believed that the 
temple would stand until the end of the world, 
Psalm lxxviii. 69. But the apostles never 
adopted or favoured this opinion. Vide Thess. 
ut supra. 

(4) Some further observations on the nature 
and continuance of the government which Christ 
as a man administers in heaven. 

{a) The government of Christ is described by 
himself and his apostles as being, not external 
and temporal, but spiritual, conducted principal- 
ly by means of his religion, by the preaching of 
the gospel, and the power which attends it; 
dto^cta, John, xviii. 37 ; or pr^uan, Eph. v. 26. 
Vide No. 3. This fact excludes and refutes the 
objection, that Christ designed to establish an 
earthly kingdom, s. 89 ; and it frustrates the 
hopes of the Chiliasts, who, agreeably to Jew- 
ish prejudices, are expecting such a kingdom 
yet to come. 

(b) This government which Jesus adminis- 
ters, as a man, is not natural to him, or one 
which he attains by birth, hut acquired. He 
received it from his Father as a .eward for his 
sufferings, and for his faithful p« rformance of 
the whole work and discharge of all the offices 
entrusted to him by God for the good of men. 
'E^apiffftt'o avtu ovoua, and 8 t 6 avtov vrtepv- 
4ous, Phil, ii. 9. "We see Jesus, after he had 
endured death, crowned with gl ry and honour," 
&c, Hebrews, ii. 9, 10. The Father is de- 



352 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



scribed as vitoio&ac, Xpusfcp rtavta, 1 Cor. xv. 
24, 27 ; Acts, ii. 31 — 36 ; the discourses of Jesus 
in John, xvii. 5 ; Matt. xi. 27, seq. ; xxviii. 18 ; 
also many of the texts which speak of his sit- 
ting at the right hand of God, s. 99. Paul, in 
his epistle to the Hebrews, frequently makes 
use, in relation to this subject, of the word 
te^sto^vai,, which is applied literally to the 
reward of victors. He explains the idea in a 
very intelligible manner, Heb. v. 8. Christ 
learned by his sufferings to obey God and do 
his will ; and he who knows how to obey so 
well is #lso qualified to govern well. Vide 
Moms, p. 184, s. 9, for other texts and com- 
ments. This kingdom is therefore called, at one 
time, the kingdom of God, from its founder ; at 
another time, the kingdom of Christ, who ac- 
complished the plan of God; and still again, 
the kingdom of God and of Christ, because God 
and Christ were united in its establishment. 

(c) The Israelites imagined, according to the 
instruction of the prophets, that the kingdom of 
the Messiah would be an everlasting kingdom 
(aiu>v(,os, perpetuus, continuing as long as the 
world should endure. Thus it is always repre- 
sented in the New Testament. " He will reign 
over the house of Jacob sis ^ovs aiu>va$, xai t'jJj 
jSaffc^staj avfov ovx latav t'e^oj," Luke, i. 33. 
The text, Ps. xlv. 7, o $povos gov sis ibv aiuvu 
tov aiuivos, is explained in the same way, Heb. 
i. 8. Christ himself says expressly, Matt. xvi. 
18, rtvhat adov ov xatrfzvGovaL tfjs £xx%vjalas — i. e., 
the society established by him should not de- 
cline and perish, like so many others, but al- 
ways endure. He said, with great explicitness, 
Matt, xxviii. 20, that his assistance and special 
care should extend to his followers «*$ t^s <svv- 
T?£%sia$ Tfov alu>vo$. His friends should enjoy 
his constant presence, support, and assistance, 
in every condition of life, until the end of the 
world that now is. 

(c?) From what has been said, it appears that 
the government which Christ as a man admi- 
nisters in heaven will continue only while the 
present constitution of the world lasts. At the 
end of the world, when the heavenly state com- 
mences, the government which Christ adminis- 
ters as a man will cease ,• so far, at least, as it 
aims to promote the holiness and happiness of 
men, since those of our race who labour for this 
end will then have attained the goal, and will 
be actually blessed. So Paul says expressly, 
1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, in entire accordance with the 
universal doctrine of the New Testameut re- 
specting the kingdom of Christ as man. He is 
speaking of the kingdom of Jesus, or of his of- 
fice as Messiah, and refers to Ps. ex. 1, "Sit 
on my right hand, until I subject to thee all 
thine enemies." The phrase, to sit on the 
right hand of the Father, he explains by jSacrt- 
?uv£M>, and comprehends under this term all the 



offices of the Messiah and the institution* 
which he has established for the good of men — 
i. e., for their holiness and eternal blessed- 
ness. These offices (his kingdom) will cease at 
the end of the world, when all the opposers of 
the advancement of his kingdom upon earth, 
and even Death, the last enemy of his followers, 
will be subdued, and when his friends will be 
introduced by himself into that eternal blessed- 
ness to which it is his aim to exalt them. Then 
will his great plan for the happiness of men be 
completed, and the end of his office as Messiah 
will be attained. Thenceforward the Father 
will no more make use, as before, of the inter- 
vention of the Messiah to govern and bless men ; 
for now they will be actually blessed. Christ 
then will lay down his former charge, and give 
it over to the Father, who had entrusted him 
with it. For we cannot expect that the preach- 
ing of the gospel will be continued in heaven, 
and that the other institutions of the Christian 
church, which relate only to the present life, 
will be found there in the same way as they ex- 
ist here upon the earth. In the abodes of the 
blessed, the Father will himself reign over his 
saints with an immediate government, and in a 
manner different from the rule which he causes 
to be exercised over them through Christ, his 
ambassador, while they continue upon the earth. 
Vide Scripta varii argumenti, p. 60, seq., ed. ii. 
The glory and majesty of Christ will remain, 
however, unaltered; and he will still far excel 
his friends and brethren, who enjoy a happiness 
similar to his own. He will still be honoured 
and loved by them as their Lord, and as the au- 
thor of their salvation, John, xvii. 24; Rom. 
viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 

SECTION XCIX. 

REMARKS ON THE FORM AND SENSE OF THE SCRIP- 
TURAL REPRESENTATION RESPECTING THE KING- 
DOM OF GOD AND OF CHRIST ; AND ON THE SIG- 
NIFICATION OF THE PHRASE, "TO SIT ON THE 
RIGHT HAND OF GOD," AS APPLIED TO CHRIST. 

I. Origin and Design cf the Formulae respecting 
the Kingdom of Christ. 

(I) We must begin with the principle, that 
many of the images, expressions, and phrases, 
which are applied to God and his government, 
are borrowed from those applied to earthly 
kings. We regard God as possessing every- 
thing which is considered great, exalted, and 
pre-eminent among men, but in a far higher de- 
gree. With us everything is small and limit- 
ed, with him, great, comprehensive, and im- 
measurable. But now again, we reason retro- 
gressively from the Deity, and from heaven to 
earth. God, by his agency, is the cause of every- 
thing great and wonderful which takes place 
on the earth, ovdhv uvsv ©eov. Even the govern- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 353 



raent of kings is of divine origin, and they are 
appointed by the Deity himself. 

Tifj.fi (AtoT,o£f//£os /?a(nXfjoj) <5' en Aioj sari, (/>iAa 6e e 
UririsTa Zev$, 

Horn. II. ii. 197. "Jupiter bestows upon kings 
their sceptre, and the right to reign over others," 
v. 205. See also II. ix. 93, 99; and Callim. 
Hymn, in Jov. lx Atdj /Saaa^s, x. t. %. They 
are accordingly the representatives and ambas- 
sadors of the gods, bear their image, govern and 
judge in their stead. Hence they are called 

gods, SOnS of God, 6lOy£VE(,$, C^O^pf^ttf, ©ftOt, 

apti^soo, x. t. %. 

All these ideas and expressions were com- 
mon with the Israelitish nation, and were so- 
lemnly sanctioned by their prophets under direct 
divine authority. The God Jehovah was their 
proper king, supreme over their state and na- 
tion. He governed them through the instru- 
mentality of human regents and deputed kings. 
Their constitution was theocratic, — to make use 
of a happy term, first applied to this subject by 
Josephus. Hence the Israelitish state and na- 
tion are called the possession, and the peculiar 
people of Jehovah, and also, the kingdom of Je- 
hovah ; as Ex. xix. 6 ; Ps. cxiv. 2. In the same 
way the later Jews applied the phrases, king- 
dom of God, or, of heaven, to the Jewish state 
and church, and to the whole religion and ritual 
of the Israelites. When a proselyte was re- 
ceived by them, he was said to be admitted 
into the kingdom of God, or, of heaven. Vide 
Schottgen, De regno coelorum (Hor. Heb. T. I. 
extr.) ; and Wetstein on Matt. xxi. 25, Note. 
On this account the Jews called themselves 
vlovc fiatiiXstas, Matt. viii. 12 ; and Christ said, 
the kingdom of heaven (the rights of the peo- 
ple of God) should be taken from them, Matt. 
xxi. 43. 

(2) The Jews, according to the instruction of 
their prophets, conceived of the Messiah as a 
ruler and religious reformer, like Moses and the 
pious kings of antiquity, only far greater, more 
exalted and perfect than they, (vide s. 89 ;) and 
so they spake of the eternal king, and the eternal 
kingdom of David, 2 Sam. vii. ; Psalm lxxxix. 
They therefore called the happy condition of the 
church and state under the reign of the Messiah, 
and the subjects of his government, by way of 
eminence, /3acft?-.£ta ®sov or ovpavuv. They be- 
lieved that they exclusively should enjqy this 
kingdom, and, together with the Messiah, should 
reign over all nations. After the Babylonian 
exile, this appellation, applied in this sense to 
the kingdom of the Messiah peculiarly, became 
very common, and was probably taken from 
Dan. vii. 13, 14. It must have been common 
in Palestine at the time of Christ, but it occurs 
very rarely in the later Rabbinical waitings. 

(3) Jesus and his apostles did not, then, invent 

45 



these w T ords and phrases ; they only preserved 
the terms which they found already existing, and 
gave them a meaning more just and pure than the 
common one. Thfs they did, however, with 
wise caution and forbearance. Christ admitted 
the expectations of the Jews of freedom in the 
kingdom of the Messiah, but he shewed that this 
freedom was not civil liberty, but freedom from 
the power of sin, John, viii. 32; Luke, xvii. 20. 
He confirmed the opinion of the Jews, that the 
sacred writings testified concerning the Messiah, 
and he agreed with the Jews as to the very pas- 
sages containing this testimony, but he taught 
them the more just and spiritual" interpretation 
of these passages. Vide s. 90, III. By rc- 
ceiving the kingdom of God, he means, believing 
in Jesus Christ, submitting to his guidance and 
obeying his precepts, and thus obtaining the 
right of enjoying the divine favours promised 
through the Messiah, John, iii. ; Mark, x. 15. 
The same is meant by being received into the 
kingdom of God, Col. i. 13; Ephes. v. 5. It 
was for this object that John the Baptist had 
before laboured, although he was ignorant on 
many points belonging to the new 7 dispensation ; 
the essentials, however, he understood, and his 
theme w 7 as, "Repent, for the kingdom of God 
is at hand." He knew Christ to be the " Lamb 
of God, which takelh away the sins of the 
world ;" and described the Messiah as the am- 
bassador of God, a teacher and expiator, John, 
i. 29 ; iii. 27, 32, 34. 

(4) These attempts of Jesus and his apostles 
were very much facilitated by the fact that the 
terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven 
w;ere used figuratively even by the Jews. They 
frequently gave these phrases a moral and spiri- 
tual sense, denoting and comprehending all the 
divine appointments for the spiritual welfare of 
men, for their happiness in this and the future 
life ; everything, in short, -which serves to pro- 
mote the progressive holiness and proportionate 
happiness of man in this life, and the life to 
come, which is his true destination. Hence 
they conceived of a tw T ofold kingdom or state of 
God ; one upon the earth, of which the dispensa- 
tion under the Messiah constitutes the brightest 
and greatest epoch, the other in heaven. The 
pious worshippers of God are translated from the 
former to the latter. Here they live as strangers 
in a land of pilgrimage, there they are at home, 
in their native land. So they called the latter 
place the Fathers house, the upper church, the 
heavenly or new Jerusalem. And so, compre- 
hensively, the entire sum of happiness after 
death and in the future world was called the 
kingdom of God. 

Now Jesus and the apostles frequently use 
the phrase jSaattaia &sov or ovpavwv, in this 
sense ; and still more frequently do they con- 
nect the two senses together. One who is a 
2 c2 



354 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



member of the kingdom of the Messiah upon 
the earth, and obey his precepts, has a title to 
citizenship in the kingdom of God which is in 
heaven (in the city of Godwin the new Jerusa- 
lem), Phil. iii. 20, 21, coll. Matt. xxv. 34; 
James, ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 50 ; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; 2 
Tim, iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11. The remark made 
respecting j3ocM,£vsm/ avv Xpuyz^, x. tf. %., be- 
longs in this connexion. Vide s. 98, II. 1. 

(7) From what has been said, it appears that 
images derived from a king and his subjects, 
and their mutual relations, are more proper and 
suitable than any other to represent and de- 
scribe the duties, benefits, and privileges of the 
worshippers of God, and especially of the true 
followers of the Messiah. But the Jews, who 
had little taste for what is spiritual, were con- 
tent with the mere image, and so forgot the 
thing itself which the image was designed to 
indicate. They imagined a king reigning visibly 
upon the earth. 

Jesus and his apostles preserved these same 
images, but shewed in what w r ay they ought to be 
understood and applied. They shewed that the 
Messiah, after his ascension, did not visibly and 
bodily reign on the earth, but that henceforward 
he reigned in heaven; and there, invisible to 
mortal eyes, would rule the inhabitants of hea- 
ven and earth (the latter by his religion and vi- 
sible support) until the end of the world. They 
shewed, moreover, that this invisible and hea- 
venly government was of far wider extent than 
the earthly government expected by the Jews, 
and would embrace not one nation only, but all 
nations without distinction ; because the king- 
dom of morality, of truth, and happiness, is a 
kingdom for all, such being the destination of 
all, and God, as a father, being solicitous for the 
happiness of all his children, John, x. 16; 
a>vaxs§a%(uuictao$aL ta rtdvta sv XpttfTcS, Eph. i. 
10, also 7t7^povv rtdvta, (comprehendere impe- 
rio,) Ephes. i. 23, iii. 19; Col. i. 18. They 
taught that the whole visible disclosure of the 
majesty of Christ, and his return to the earth, 
would not take place before the end of the pre- 
sent constitution of the world. Thus they pre- 
served the ancient expressions and phrases 
respecting the Messiah and his royal office, 
which had been common among the Israelites, 
but so defined and modified the meaning of them, 
as to give them an entirely different aspect — a 
different and far more elevated sense than was 
common — a sense, too, which entirely agreed 
with the real meaning of the Old-Testament 
predictions. 

Kings are the sons of God ; and the most illus- 
trious kings are the first-born. And so the Mes- 
siah ; but he, in a far higher sense than all 
earthly kings, is Tid$ ®tov, rtpwt ot 0x0$, po- 
voyivrp, John, i. ; Heb. i. 6 ; Romans, viii. 29 ; 
Col. i. 15, coll. ver. 18. The sons of kings, 



especially the first-born, are the heirs and pos- 
sessors of the kingdom; and, among the Israel- 
ites, themselves ruled as representatives and 
deputies of the father over particular provinces 
of his kingdom. Vide Anmerkung zu Ps. xlv. 
17. So, too, the Messiah rules over the most 
important parts of the paternal or divine king- 
dom. Hence he is called xX'/jpovo/xos, Lord, 
possessor of the kingdom, Heb. i. 2. Kings de- 
cree justice and hold judgment in the name of 
God, as his ambassadors and deputies, Psalm 
lxxii. 1. So, too, the Messiah; but he will 
hold judgment over the living and the dead, in 
the name of the Father, at the end of the world. 
In the same way, the other forms and expres- 
sions may be easily solved. 

(6) This kind of representation and mode of 
instruction is in a high degree intelligible at all 
times ; it possesses internal truth and reality. 
But it was particularly adapted to all the con- 
ceptions of the Jews, and even of the heathen 
at that age. It conveyed to them, when it was 
properly understood, the most exalted and proper 
ideas respecting God, and his designs in the 
establishment of the Christian institute and 
church. At the time of Christ and the apostles, 
the belief universally prevailed among the Jews, 
and indeed appears to have been entertained 
even by the prophets, that God governed the 
world by means of angels, as the servants and 
instruments of his providence. Vide s. 58, 60. 
The belief, too, of many subordinate deities, 
through whose instrumentality the supreme 
God governed the world, prevailed among hea- 
then nations. Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. The apos- 
tles, therefore, shewed that God had now en- 
trusted the government of the world and the 
care of our spiritual welfare directly to the man 
Christ; and that these ministers of Divine pro- 
vidence, as well as all the other instruments 
which it employed, were now subjected to him, 
that all might trust in him alone, as the author 
of salvation. Vide 1 Cor. ut supra. And so 
Paul, Heb. i., ii., proves that Christ is far ex- 
alted above all the servants and ministers of 
God (angels), who are now indeed made sub- 
ject and obedient to him. This reference of the 
apostolical doctrine is very clear from Hebrews, 
ii. 5, ovx cuyye%oig vrtsfaJze *tr k v OLXOVfxivt^v trjv (i£%- 
?io<ucrou', (i. e., the times of the New Testament,) 
but to Christ only, although he lived in humi- 
liation upon the earth, (vide the verse follow- 
ing,) which was always revolting to the Jews. 

Note. — To say the whole briefly: the phrase 
kingdom of God, or, of Christ, in the sense in 
which John the Baptist, Jesus, and his apostles, 
understood it, signifies, the whole work of Christ 
for the good of men, and everything which is ef- 
fected by this work. Hence the phrase denotes 
(a) all the benefits, rights, privileges, and 
rewards which his followers receive in this and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 355 



the future life ; comprising the doctrine re- 
specting Christ, forgiveness of sin, and all the 
blessedness which we owe to him; and some- 
times comprising, too, the followers of Christ 
themselves (cives), who enjoy these blessings; 
(b) all the duties and the worship which we 
owe to God and Christ ; and so the conditions 
on which we obtain the blessings above enume- 
rated. Thus are the comprehensive phrases, to 
enter into the kingdom of God, to see it, &c, to 
be understood. Vide especially Morus, p. 184, 
185, n. 3. Cf. Storr, "De notione regni coeles- 
tis in N. T." Opusc. Acad. t. i. n. v. 

II. Signification of the phrase, " to sit on the right 
hand of God," as applied to Christ.* 

(1) The phrase is borrowed from Psalm ex. 
1, which the Jewish teachers at the time of 
Christ must have considered to be a Messianic 
psalm, as appears from Matt. xxii. 44, seq. 
[Vide, for the explanation of this psalm, the 
note to the author's German translation, 3rd 
ed.] The origin of this expression, too, is to 
be sought in a comparison of God with earthly 
kings. We conceive of kings, rulers, judges, 
as sitting on thrones, when they exercise rule, 
pronounce judgment, or display all their splen- 
dour and majesty. Hence the verba sedendi (as 
2&i) signify also to rule, to reign. God has his 
throne in the heavens, and there Christ, after 
his ascension, seated himself with God; 1 
Peter, iii. 22; Ephes. i. 20; Heb. i. 13. Now 
for any one to be appointed a place with a king, 
to be seated with him, or at his right hand, is 
frequently — 

(«) A mere external mark of honour, shew- 
ing that such a person is highly respected, es- 
teemed, and loved by the king. So 1 Kings, ii. 
19, seq. ; 1 Sam. xx. 25 ; 1 Mace. x. 62 — 65. 
Standing at the right hand is the same thing, 
Psalm xiv. 10. The Grecian and Roman writers 
furnish abundant examples of the same usage. 
But it denotes — 

(&) Participation in the government and asso- 
ciated rule, though not full equality in rank and 
dignity. Sitting with the king is plainly used 
in this sense, Matt. xx. 21, and frequently in 
Grecian and Roman writers, and in Grecian 
mythology. Minerva is represented by Homer 
as sitting beside Jupiter, and by Pindar as sit- 
ting at his right hand, and as giving charges 
and commands. Apollo is represented by Cal- 
limachus as sitting at the right hand of Jupiter, 
and as rewarding singers and poets. In all 
these cases, participation in the government and 
associated rule are indicated, though not full 
equality . 

* Vide the Programm cited in the preceding Sec- 
tions, in which the various explanations which have 
been given to this phrase are enumerated and exa- 
mined. Cf Morus, p. 185, n. 6. 



(2) Now when this phrase is applied to 
Christ, we easily see from this analogy what it 
must mean, and how it must have been under- 
stood by ancient readers and hearers. The 
phrase is never applied to Christ except when 
his humanity is spoken of, or when he is men- 
tioned as Messiah, as ®edv^pco7to^. It is not 
spoken of his divine character, though Michaelis 
so explains it, referring it to the seat of God 
upon the ark of the covenant. The language, 
"Christ left his seat at the right hand of the 
Father in order to become man," was first used 
by the fathers who lived after the fourth century. 
Such language never occurs in the New Testa- 
ment. Sitting at the right hand of God is always 
there represented as the reward which the Mes- 
siah obtained from God, after his death and as- 
cension, for the faithful accomplishment, when 
upon earth, of all his work for the salvation of 
man. It is the promised reward (ttf.tiaxsis, j3pa- 
fislov,) which the victor receives after a long con- 
test. Vide Acts, ii. 31 — 36; Heb. xii.2. Hence 
the Father is said to have placed Jesus at his right 
hand, Ephes. i. 20. This phrase, therefore, 
beyond doubt, implies everything which belongs 
to the glory of Christ considered as a man, 
and to the dominion over the entire universe, 
over the human race, and especially over the 
church and its members, which belongs to him 
as a king. Vide s. 98. This is the reward 
which he receives from the Father ; he takes 
this place, as a man, for the first time, imme- 
diately after his ascension to heaven, 1 Peter, 
iii. 22; Mark, xvi. 19; Acts, ii. 32, seq. &c. 
With this his reign in heaven commences. 
Paul himself explains the phrase by fiaa iters iv, 
1 Cor. xv. 25, and opposes %wtovpyslv (which 
is applied to angels, vide Heb. i. 3, 4) to xa^tiu 
ex 8s%lwv ®eov, Heb. i. 13, 14. One of the most 
decisive texts is Ephes. i. 20 — 22, " God raised 
him from the dead, and set him at his own right 
hand," ver. 20. The exaltation and dominion 
of Jesus, which extends over everything in all 
the universe, is described ver. 21 ; and finally 
his reign over the church is particularly men- 
tioned, xal avtov Idcoxs x£tya"kYiv srti rtavta (su- 
preme ruler) riy exx%rjala., ver. 22. Cf. 1 Pet. 
iii. 22. 



CHAPTER III. 

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 

SECTION C. 

OF THE HIGHER NATURE IN CHRIST, AND HOW r IT 
IS PROVED. 

We have before shewn (s. 93) that Christ was 
a true man, both as to soul and body ; but have 



3M 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



now to shew that, according- to the representa- 
tion of the New Testament, he was not a mere 
man, but that he possessed at the same time 
such exalted perfections as cannot be ascribed 
to any mere man, or, indeed, to any created be- 
ing ; or, to speak in the language of the schools, 
that he possessed a divine nature. Caution is 
necessary in the selection of the texts by which 
this doctrine is proved. 

(1) This doctrine cannot be proved, 

(a) By every text in which Christ is called 
Ttoj ®sov, for this is frequently a name by which 
his work and office, and not his nature, are de- 
noted. There are passages, however, in which 
Tide, ®sov and uovoysv^ clearly indicate the 
higher nature of Christ. Vide s. 73, 6, b. Such 
texts only must be chosen as are determined by 
the context and predicates to have this reference 
— e. g., John, v. 10; and the appellation, uovo- 
yswqs;, John, i. ; also the texts in which Christ 
calls God his Father, in a sense in which this 
name is never used by any created being; those, 
too, in which he ascribes attributes to himself, 
as Son, which never were or could be predicated 
of a mortal or created spirit ; the texts, e. g., in 
which he says that he works in common with 
his Father. It deserves, however, to be re- 
marked, that many theologians ever since the 
earliest ages have considered the appellation 
Son of God, as denoting simply the divine nature 
of Christ. These remarks apply equally to the 
appellation Aoyoj, in itself considered. 

(b) By those expressions, when taken by 
themselves, which ascribe to Christ resemblance 
to God in some high degree — e. g., slxiiv &sov 
aopdtov, Col. i. 15, and drtavya^ua ho%-q<i and 
ZupaxTfrip v7to6Tfd6£io^ o/utou, Heb. i. 3. 'Ariav- 
yaifia fioi^j signifies the radiance of the divine 
splendour or majesty; %apaxT?rip vrtoatdtfetoe; 
avtov — a visible image (imago expressa) of the 
divine substance. The sense, then, of these re- 
presentations is this, "The Son is he through 
whom God hath clearly revealed, or visibly 
made known himself to men." So Paul him- 
self explains it, 2 Cor. iv. 4, "As God, at the 
creation, gave light to the obscure earth, so 
Christ by his religion gave light to men, and 
led them to a clear knowledge of God." Vide 
John, i. 14, coll. ver. 18. But other expressions 
in the passages just cited, clearly ascribing di- 
vine attributes to Christ, are proof of this doc- 
trine, as may be seen below. 

(c) Nor is this doctrine proved by those pas- 
sages which treat of Christ's state of exaltation, 
and of the eminent privileges which were con- 
ferred upon him as a man, when he entered upon 
that condition — e. g., a large portion of the pas- 
sages, Phil, ii., and Heb. i. 6, seq., which are 
often improperly adduced as proof-texts of his 
divine nature. 

One great evil of an incautious selection of 



proof-texts is this, that when one particular pas- 
sage is found not to prove the point for which 
it was adduced, the conclusion is readily made 
that the whole doctrine is incapable of scriptural 
support. 

(2) This doctrine may be proved, 

(a) By the texts in which Christ is described 
as far exalted over all the creatures of God, over 
men, angels, and everything in the universe 
besides God himself, and indeed as the creator 
and preserver of all things. Such texts are Col. 
i. 15, 16, and others already explained, s. 38. 
The proof in point is not derived so much from 
the term, tlxuv ®sov, as from what is there pre- 
dicated of Christ. Ilpcototoxos Ttdorjc; XTfiGstoc;, 
does not mean, the greatest or first of all crea- 
tures; for we find immediately after, that he 
himself created all things ; and we must there- 
fore conclude that he is not the first of all crea- 
tures, since he is himself the Creator, npcofo- 
toxoc. must be rendered either king, ruler, Heb. 
i. 6, and Rev. iii. 14, where we read dpzrj (i. e., 
apz^v) xtlasu>$ ®sov ; or, he who existed prior to 
all creatures, in which sense the Jews called 
God primogenitum mundi. 

(Jf) By the texts in which attributes are as- 
cribed to Christ which can be predicated of no 
mortal, and which are never ascribed to angels, 
or to the prophets, or other inspired teachers 
whom God has employed for the accomplish- 
ment of his purposes upon the earth. Such 
texts are found most frequently in John. Among 
them are those which contain the phrase so often 
occurring, " he descended from heaven," John, 
iii. 31 ; vi. 31, seq., ver. 62; viii. 23; xiii. 3; 
xvi. 28. This phrase denotes superhuman, hea- 
venly, or, divine origin and nature ; and is 
spoken of manna, John, vi. 31 ; and of wisdom, 
James, i. 17; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 47. This language 
is never used with respect to any mere prophet 
or inspired teacher. Even John, whose bap- 
tism was e| ovpavov (of divine origin), distin- 
guishes himself from Christ, who came from 
heaven, (John, iii. 31 ;) and speaking of Christ's 
return to heaven, he says, "he returned thither 
oHov r t v lb rtpoT'spov, John, vi. 62, and xvii. The 
text is so clear, that Socinus and others, who 
denied the superhuman nature of Christ, invent- 
ed a rapture of Christ into the heavens, (raptum 
in ccelum ;) or considered the text as referring 
to the pre-existence of the human soul,- although 
not a trace of such an opinion appears in the 
Bible. 

Here it might indeed be objected, " that 
Christ is described as an exalted, heavenly spirit, 
but not as God; he. might still have been created." 
So the Arians. The objection, however, is not 
valid ; because, in these passages and elsewhere, 
he is said to exist before any created things, 
(i. e., ab aeterno,) John, i. 1, and xvii. Vide 
s. 37, in prin. Before the creation of the world 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 357 



notning existed besides God ; so that whatever 
had existence then was God himself, belonging 
to his being and his attributes. This is the di- 
rect and incontrovertible conclusion of John in 
the passage cited. Indeed, Christ is distinctly 
affirmed to have enjoyed supreme divine glory 
in heaven. " Restore to me (by exaltation) the 
glory rjf il%ov rtpb tov tov xo<3y.ov Uvai rtapa 
(jot" — i. e., in heaven, (referring to his divine 
nature,) John, xvii. 5. Such language is never 
used in respect to any prophet, angel, or any 
created intelligence. Aofa, in the last case, 
cannot refer to the office of Christ, or to his do- 
minion, for he had none " before the creation of 
the world." Hence he is called by way of 
eminence, 6 Tl6<; Qtov, (John, v. 10;) 6 /xovo- 
ysvrtf, (John, i. 14;) because, among all who 
are elsewhere called the sons or children of God, 
he is alone in his kind, and bears this name in 
an exalted sense, in which no man, no angel, 
no created being, can appropriate it, John, v. 
Vide s. 37. 

Christ also frequently alludes in his dis- 
courses to his divine nature in another way — 
e. g., by the word dpi, John, vii. 29, 34, 36; 
" before Abraham was, I am," John, viii. 58. 
This is the very language in which the immu- 
table God speak of himself in the present time. 
So the Jews understood it; and regarded it as 
blasphemy for Christ to apply it to himself, and 
on this account began to stone him, ver. 59. 
For never had a prophet or any created being 
spoken thus of himself. 

Christ also frequently ascribed the miracles 
which he wrought to himself. He professed 
that he worked, or acted, in common with God, 
John, v. 17; x. 31. This, again, was never 
said of any of the prophets. In the miracles of 
which they were the instruments, nothing, in- 
deed, was done by them, but everythingby God. 
Accordingly, the Jews affirmed that by this 
claim Christ made himself equal with God, Igov, 
Oeq, John, v. 18; x. 31, seq. They perceived 
that he used the term filius Dei in a sense in 
which no mere man could use it with respect 
to himself; and that he made himself equal with 
God, by ascribing to himself what can belong to 
God only. And Christ does not disapprove, 
but rather authorizes their conclusion, John, v. 
and x. 

There are" many other. expressions in the last 
discourses of Jesus to his disciples (John, xiii., 
seq.) which never are used in the Bible, and 
never can be used, in respect to any created be- 
ing: as John, xiv. 6 — 9 ; also ver. 13, 14, where 
Christ ascribes to himself the hearing of prayer, 
&c. 

These classes of texts prove clearly against 
Photinus and the Socinians, that the writers of 
the New Testament did not understand Christ 
o be a mere man, but that they supof^ed him 



to possess a higher nature, far exalted above that 
of men and angels. This the Arians concede. 
But they affirm that these texts are not sufficient 
to prove his equality with the Father. Even 
these texts, however, go far towards proving this 
point. But it is proved more directly, 

(c) From the third class of texts, which shew 
that Christ is represented by the writers of the 
New Testament as partaking of the divine na- 
ture as fully as the Father, and being as truly 
God (loo$ rtotfpt) as tUe Father; and from texts 
in which he is called God. All the necessary 
considerations respecting these texts are found 
s. 37, 38. 

SECTION CI. 

OF THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE DEITY AND 
HUMANITY OF CHRIST, ACCORDING TO WHAT 
THE BIBLE DIRECTLY TEACHES, AND THE CON- 
SEQUENCES WHICH MAY BE DEDUCED FROM ITS 
INSTRUCTIONS. 

I. What the Bible directly teaches respecting the 
Union of the two Natures in Christ. 

(1) When we compare, without preposses- 
sion or prejudice, the various passages which 
treat of Christ, we clearly perceive that two 
parts, as it were, or two aspects, are distin- 
guished in the same subject or person. This 
subject, called Christ, is considered as God, and 
as man ,- divine and human attributes are equally 
ascribed to him in one and the same context ; 
as in his own prayer, John, xvii. 5. It was for 
this reason that, even as early as the third cen- 
tury, the appellation ©sai^pwrtoj, or0lcu-§pos, was 
given him. Vide s. 102. The clearest passages 
in point are found in John; especially i. 3, coll. 
ver. 13, which clearly teach, (c) that the same 
Adyof, who created all things, and existed from 
eternity with the Father, as his Son and confi- 
dant — the same Aoyoj (6) became man, (sap! 
fyfi'Eto,) and lived among men. Hence the 
evvdpxcoais of the fathers. The passage of Paul, 
Gal. iv. 4, agrees with the one last mentioned ; 
but, taken by itself, is not so clear. So the text, 
John, xvi. 28, "He who came down from hea- 
ven, the same returns again to heaven." The 
same person who, as man, lived among men, 
came down from heaven, and existed previously 
in heaven ; John, iii. 13 ; vi. 62 ; xvii. 5 ; also, 
1 Tim. iii. 16 ; John, viii. 40, 57, 58 ; and chap, 
xiv. 

From these texts it follows, (a) that the 
Logos, who was from eternity with the Father, 
is the same person who afterwards appeared 
upon the earth under the name of Jesus Christ; 
(6) that this Logos became a real man, (sap! 
syivBto,) or received a human nature, and not 
merely assumed an apparent human form. 
Now, except we deviate arbitrarily from the 



358 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



words of the Bible, we can explain these facts 
only on the supposition that in Christ deity and 
humanity are distinguished, and yet connected. 

(2) This connexion between the Son of God 
and the man Jesus commenced when Christ was 
conceived ; vide s. 93. For the supposition of 
the Gnostic sects, and of Cerinthus, that the 
higher nature was united with the man Jesus at 
some later period, as at his baptism, is wholly 
unscriptural. John plainly declares, i. 14, that 
the Aoyoj (the same to whom divine predicates 
had been ascribed, ver. 1) sap! syivsifo. From 
this passage we are compelled to conclude that 
the divine nature connected itself with the hu- 
man, when the latter was conceived. Theolo- 
gians illustrate this by the human soul, which 
in conception is united with the human body, 
and thenceforward animates and governs it. In 
the same way was the divine nature united with 
the human, thenceforward composing with it 
one person, Christ; as our soul and body united 
constitute one individual man, consisting of two 
very dissimilar natures. 

(3) Sapi must here be taken, in its common 
scriptural sense, to denote not merely a man, but 
one infirm like others, only without sin. The 
theologians of the earliest ages, even of the se- 
cond century, took occasion from this term to 
call Christ's becoming man ivadpxcaa^ and Lvav- 
^pu>,-tj?tf<^, Lat. incarnatio. In after times they 
denominated the same event rtpocft,^ 1 ?* assumtio, 
the assuming of human nature ; since we must 
suppose that the superior nature condescended 
to the human and became united with it, and not 
the reverse. This mode of speech, although 
in itself unobjectionable, is not scriptural. For 
the phrase, artipfiatos 'Aj3paa,a srti'kafifidvi'tcu, 
Heb. ii. 16, means, that he assisted, took care of 
the children of Abraham. How could Griip/xa 
'Ai3paa ( u, denote human nature 1 ? 'Ertc%a[ifidveo§<u 
and avto'kaufidvE&av i?ivo$ literally mean, to take 
hold of any one, Acts, xxiii. 19 ; then, to assist, 
to take care of any one, Sir. iv. 12; Luke, i. 54. 

II. Conclusions from these Scriptural Statements ,• 
and a more precise explanation of them. 

The connexion of deity and humanity in Christ 
was, 

(1) Not of such a nature as that either the 
deity or humanity was deprived of any essential 
and peculiar attributes, or in any essential re- 
spect changed. For, 

(a) The divine nature connot be supposed to 
have changed. Such a supposition would con- 
tradict our very first ideas respecting God. It is 
not therefore just and proper to say, as some of 
the fathers did, The eternal Son of God (i. e., 
the Deity) left heaven, surrendered or re- 
nounced his glory, and condescended to suffering, 
indigence, &c, on the earth. Such language is 
never used in the Bible ; and the idea implied 



by it is inconsistent with the divine glory. Bu* 
for the Deity to unite itself with frail humanity 
is no more unsuitable, derogatory, or dishonour- 
able, than for God to give proofs of his glory in 
the meanest of his works, to connect himself 
with them, and in and through them to exert his 
power and agency. 

(b) Nor could the human nature be altered in 
any essential respect by this its connexion with 
the divine; for Christ would then have ceased 
to be a true man. If one should say therefore 
that Christ as a man had, from the beginning of 
his existence, the possession and use of all divine 
attributes — that as a man he was almighty, om- 
niscient, omnipresent — and that, as many theolo- 
gians suppose, he merely forbore the exercise 
of these attributes as a man, he would thus, in 
reality, deify the human nature of Christ. Vide 
s. 92, III. 2. Besides, the passages of the 
Bible which speak of the increase of his know- 
ledge, Luke, ii. 52 — of his not knowing, Mark, 
xiii. 32, &c, clearly teach the contrary. For 
these representations do not bear the explanation 
which some have given them, that he merely 
pretended that he did not know,) simulabat se 
nescire, as Augustine said,) that he pretended to 
increase in wisdom, &c. In short, those who 
form such hypotheses confess with the mouth 
the true humanity of Christ, while in fact they 
deny it, and allow to Christ only the veil of a 
human body and the external appearance of 
humanity. 

(2) The connexion of the two natures must 
rather be placed in the two following points — 
viz., (a) in a close and constant connexion of the 
deity of Christ with his humanity from the com- 
mencement of his existence ; (6) in a co-opera- 
tion of the two natures in action, where it was 
requisite and necessary, and as far as the nature 
and attributes of each admitted. The scriptural 
doctrine is this : " the glory (<$d|a) which Christ, 
in his superior nature, had with the Father from 
eternity (rtpo xatdj5o^ x6a t uov), was imparted 
to his human nature, and shared with it when 
he became man, so far as this human nature was 
susceptible of his glory; and was manifested 
whenever and wherever it was necessary upon 
earth," John, xvii. 5, 22, 24 ; chap, xiv., coll. 
Phil. ii. 9—11. 

By the following remarks something may be 
done to elucidate this subject, and to render it as 
intelligible as the limitation of our conceptions 
will permit. 

(a) The agency of God is not always exhibited 
with equal clearness in his creatures. His in- 
fluence at certain times and in certain circum- 
stances appears more strikingly and visibly than 
at others. The nature of God, however, remains 
unchanged, amidst all these changes of things 
which are extrinsic to himself. He is indeed 
equally connected and united with all nature, 3 fc 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 359 



ail times, and under all circumstances, from its 
iirst origin. In a similar way must we conceive 
of the relation of the divine to the human in 
Christ. In the state of humiliation, the divine in 
Christ supported his humanity, wherever and 
whenever there was any necessity for it; espe- 
cially whenever his Messianic offices required. 
The divine nature, however, did not impart to 
the human any attributes of which the latter, 
especially in its earthly state and condition, was 
incapable, or of which it did not stand in need. 
Nor did the divine nature in itself suffer any 
alteration by the fate of Jesus while he was upon 
earth, his sufferings, death, &c. But in the 
state of exaltation the sphere of the agency of 
Jesus was infinitely ennobled and enlarged. 
There the influences and the effects of his divi- 
nity could appear more visibly. There, in hea- 
ven, he is far more susceptible of its co-opera- 
tion and support, in the government of the world 
and of the church, than in his humble life upon 
the earth, John, xvii. 5, 22, 24. Christ, as a 
man, could not have been raised to such a de- 
gree of dignity and glory as to receive supreme 
dominion over the spiritual and material world, 
if his nature had not been so united with that 
of the Lord of the universe, that the boundless 
perfections of the latter became also the perfec- 
tions of his nature. The Bible always regards 
the subject in. this point of view; as John, i., 
xvii. ; Phil. ii. 9, seq. ; Heb. i. ; Ephes. i. 20, 
seq. 

(b) Writers who proceed with caution upon 
this subject describe the manner of the con- 
nexion of the- divine and human natures in 
Christ rather negatively than positively. Many, 
however, endeavour to explain the subject by 
supposing a prassentia?n arcliorem, or a.peculia- 
rem praesentioe gradum, and remark that a prae- 
seniia localis, or approximation cannot be under- 
stood. The subject has been frequently illus- 
trated, ever since the fifth century, by a compa- 
rison of the union between soul and body, and 
from this comparison the ideas and phraseology 
relative to this subject have been derived. Ac- 
cording to this comparison, the human nature 
of Christ was the instrument and organ of the 
divine nature, as the body is the organ of the 
human soul, with and through which it acts and 
operates upon things extrinsic to itself. The 
body could not act without the co-operation of 
the soul. The soul has a deep concern in every- 
thing which affects the body, and the reverse. 
And yet each of the two parts remains, as to its 
essential nature, unaltered. Vide Ernesti, Progr. 
Dignitas et Veritas incarnationis Opusc. Theol. 
p. 395, seq. 

This comparison casts some light upon the 
subject, but is not entirely applicable, and must 
not be extended too far. In the union of soul 
and body, the question regards the state and ac- 



tions of a spirit in a body. But in Christ, as a 
man, his deity does not act upon his body only, 
(as Apollinaris supposed,) but upon the human 
body and soul both ; and indeed upon the human 
body principally through the human soul. Here, 
then, the question regards the union and co-ope- 
ration of one spirit with another. 

But here we are destitute of clear conceptions 
and definite knowledge ; as we know not even 
how the human soul acts upon the body, and is 
united with it. And here we see the reason at 
once, why this subject is so obscure to us in our 
present condition, and why we are so little able 
to explain the modus. When we hear of the pre- 
sence of a spirit, if we avoid considering it as ma- 
terial, we shall obtain only this definite idea, that 
the spirit is present with us and acts upon us by 
thought. So we are present in spirit with an 
absent person when we think of him. Further 
than this, we know nothing. Vide s. 23, I. on 
the omnipresence cf God. 

After these observations, we can form this 
general conclusion : that the deity of Christ, as 
deity, is indeed everywhere present — i. e., acts 
in everything; but that it is present with the hu- 
manity of Jesus in a peculiar manner, in which 
it is not present with any other man, or any 
other created being — that is, that his divinity 
acts in and through his humanity, so far as the 
latter is susceptible of this co-operation, in such 
a way that this deity and humanity united in 
Christ must be considered as one person. This 
union is represented in a similar manner by 
Origen, Ilfpt 'Ap^wv, 1. 2. This union or con- 
nexion of the humanity of Jesus with God is 
not limited and temporary, as in other 'Spirits 
with whom God is connected, John, v. 26. 
That here there is something peculiar, which 
does not take place with respect to others, is 
shewn by the very peculiar expressions which 
are used in the Bible with respect to this union, 
and which are never used with respect to the 
union of God with his creatures in general. 

(c) These thoughts may afford us some con- 
ception of the union of the two natures ; but they 
are very insufficient to render the subject entirely 
intelligible, or to explain the manner of this 
union in a satisfactory way. Morus gives the 
right view of this subject, p. 138, s. 10. The- 
ologians call it, mysterium incarnationis, and 
the more judicious fathers are unwilling to give 
any further distinctions respecting the modus 
(^6 7twj) than the holy scriptures warrant. But 
nothing more can be determined with certainty 
from the New Testament than what has just 
been remarked. From the limitation of all hu- 
man conceptions we cannot believe that even 
the apostles or first Christians understood the 
subject better than we do. But they did not 
pretend to insist upon an explanation of things 
beyond the reach of their senses, and the sphere 



560 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



of human knowledge and science. They did not 
doubt or deny these things because they could 
not be satisfactorily explained. Cf. 1 Cor. ii., 
iii. Such was the fact, only after men adopted 
the oracular decisions of an arbitrary metaphy- 
sical philosophy, as pronounced first by the Pla- 
tonists, then by the Aristotelians, and in modern 
times by other philosophical schools. They now 
began to insist upon having everything demon- 
strated ; by a natural consequence they refused 
to believe anything which could not be demon- 
strated ; and the direct consequence of this was 
scepticism. 

The union of soul and body in one person is 
as inexplicable to philosophy as the union now 
under consideration. Indeed, if we were mere 
spirits, and did not know from experience that a 
spirit, which is immortal, and which belongs en- 
tirely to the moral and spiritual world, is, as a 
matter of fact, united with an animal body, which 
is dust and earth, into one personal 2, we should 
consider it as highly improbable, and indeed con- 
tradictory ; and our metaphysicians would per- 
haps make bold to demonstrate a priori its impos- 
sibility from principles of reason. 

Note. — Some have questioned, whether the 
ideas entertained upon this point might not be 
illustrated by a comparison of the religious opi- 
nions of other nations. We find that many na- 
tions not only worshipped deities who had been 
men, and had lived upon the earth, but believed 
that certain deities had assumed bodies, and be- 
come incarnate. This is true especially of those 
nations which believed in the transmigration of 
the soul, and were extravagant in their venera- 
tion for the founders of their religions — e. g., the 
Indians, Mongoli, Tartars, Druses, and Persians. 
But these nations exhibit a rudeness and coarse- 
ness of conception, and a gross anthropomorph- 
ism, from which Christ is far removed, and 
which never appear among the first Christians, 
nor indeed in the whole age in which they lived. 
Whatever distinct conceptions they had upon 
this subject were evidently more refined and 
suitable to the nature of God than those of 
other nations. The idea held by the Greeks of 
an attendant demon or genius, who constantly 
abode in men, is also entirely different from the 
Christian view. 

(d) Considering, then, how much there is in 
this subject which is obscure and inexplicable, 
we ought neither to prescribe any universal for- 
mulae respecting all the more minute distinctions 
of this doctrine, further than they are clearly 
founded in the scriptures; nor, after the exam- 
ple of Cyril and Leo the Great in the fifth cen- 
tury, to condemn those who are unwilling to 
assent to these human formulas. One particular 
view may be very important to us, and contri- 
bute greatly to our satisfaction and conviction ; 
but we ou^ht not for this reason to force it upon 



all other Christians, or to consider them as less 
pious and devoted to Christ, because they dif- 
fer, on some points of this doctrine, from our 
creed and our phraseology. In fact, the subject 
lies too much beyond and above our sphere. The 
opinions of men, therefore, respecting the modus 
of this truth, and their formulae of this doctrine, 
will always continue divided and various; and 
and the hypotheses of the learned will always 
be differently modified, according to the differ- 
ent systems of philosophy and different modes 
of thinking which may prevail. 

During the first ages of the church nothing 
was decided upon this subject; the simple doc- 
trine of the Bible was adopted ; and the more 
learned Christians were left at liberty, from the 
second century, to philosophize upon this sub- 
ject at pleasure. So it continued till the end of 
the fourth century. The creeds only decided, 
Jcsum esse Dei flium e Maria natum. Even 
during the violent controversies which began to 
rage in the fifth century, many of the more mo- 
derate concurred with the views just expressed. 
Melancthon remarked, justly and excellently, 
in his " Loci Theologici," that it is not worth 
while to bestow much laborious diligence on the 
minute development of this subject; that to 
know Christ is to know the salvation which he 
has procured for us; and not studiously to in- 
vestigate his nature, and the manner of his in- 
carnation : " Christum — oportet alio quodam modo 
cognoscamus, quam exhibent scholastici.''' To 
scholars, indeed, the historical knowledge of 
these investigations is useful and necessary. 
But all these subtile inquiries and distinctions 
are not proper for the instruction of the common 
people and of the young. This wise counsel 
of Melancthon was very much disregarded in 
the Lutheran church at the very period in which 
it was given; in the Formula of Concord, the 
theologians prescribed definite forms of doctrine, 
upon which the greatest stress was laid. Vide 
s. 102. 

(e) The instructions of the holy scriptures 
upon this subject, (I) are intended to shew that 
this exalted dignity of the person of Christ con- 
fers a very high value upon all that he taught, 
performed, and suffered for men; — that we are 
thus bound, according to his precepts, to believe 
his whole doctrine and work, and to apply these 
to our own benefit; — and that his doctrines are 
the doctrines of God, his works the works of 
God, his guidance and assistance, those of God. 
Morus gives some fine views to enable religious 
teachers to present this subject in a truly practi- 
cal manner, p. 139, seq., s. 12, 13. 

(2) But there is one more principal circum- 
stance, to which the scriptures often direct the 
attention, and by which the importance of this 
doctrine in a practical respect is still more illus- 
trated. Almost all men feel the necessity of 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 



361 



having a human God It is difficult to love and 
heartily confide in that immeasurable, invisible, 
inaccessible God, whom we learn from philo- 
sophy. But Jesus Christ (the Logos become 
man) is not merely the immeasurable, the invi- 
sible, the inaccessible God ; he is a true man 
of our own race, and we are his brethren. It is 
therefore easy to love him, and heartily to con- 
fide in him; especially considering how much, 
as a man, he deserves of the human race, by suf- 
fering and dying for us. Thus our love to him 
and our dependence upon him rest mostly upon 
the fact that he is man, and indeed, a man 
united with God, in such sense as no other man 
ever was. Vide 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Heb. ii. 14 — 18; 
iv. 15; (John, xiv. 1 ;) John, v. 27. 

(/) There have been some theologians who 
have maintained that the interposition of a di- 
vine person was necessary for the recovery of 
men ; that men could not have been delivered in 
any other way. Some have carried this so far 
as to seem to set limits to the divine freedom, 
and to force from God, by presumptuous demon- 
stration, what was merely a free gift. Vide s. 
88, ad finem. It were enough to shew the 
suitableness of this means, without attempting to 
prove its absolute necessity. This plan of God 
is wise, and fully suited to the wants of men; 
and therefore God has chosen it. The Bible 
always labours to exhibit this fact as the great- 
est proof of the free and unmerited love of God, 
John, iii. 16. How opposite to this is the at- 
tempt to demonstrate this truth a priori! So 
thought Athanasius ; and Augustine calls those 
stultos, who undertake to demonstrate metaphy- 
sically that God could not have saved men in 
another way. Still we find this mistaken wish 
to have every thing demonstrated even among 
the fathers. Tertullian said, ' ; God must have 
become man in order to unite God with men and 
men with God." Anselmus of the eleventh cen- 
tury argues thus: — "Without satisfaction, men 
could not be saved. To give this satisfaction 
to God was the duty of men, but the duty was 
too hard for them. None but God was able to 
give it. But to him, as the Judge of men, it 
must be given. Therefore the Son of God must 
become man, in order, as God-man, to afford this 
satisfaction to God." Vide s. 114, 2. Some 
theologians, even in modern times, especially 
from the school of Wolf, have pretended to de- 
monstrate that this was the only means of res- 
cuing man, and was absolutely necessary for 
this purpose. 

Such demonstrations are entirely unsuitable 
for promiscuous popular instruction. Christ 
commissioned his disciples notvto demonstrate 
this truth philosophically, but to exhibit it (1 
Cor. i. — iii.) ; to teach it, from their own con- 
viction and experience, with plainness and sim- 
plicity, but still with sincere interest, and then 
46 



quietly to leave the consequences with God. 
This was surely very wise ; and this is the 
course which we should pursue. Besides, in 
this constant vicissitude of philosophical opi- 
nions and schools, there is this evident disad- 
vantage, that the truth itself, which is demon- 
strated by the help of the philosophy of the 
schools, is either doubted or rejected as soon as 
the school goes down. 

SECTION CII. 

HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS EXPLANATORY OF THE 

ORIGIN AND PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM, RESPECTING THE PER- 
SON AND THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST, UNTIL 
THE EIGHTH CENTURY. 

I. Earliest Opinions, from the Second to the Fourth 

Century. 

As early as the third century many points had 
been established by the catholic councils respect- 
ing both the divine and human nature of Christ, 
separately considered, in opposition (a) to those 
who denied that Christ had a real human body 
(the Docetse), or (b) to those who either main- 
tained that he was a mere man, or, allowing his 
higher nature, yet denied his essential divinity 
and equality with the Father. From that pe- 
riod the catholic fathers introduced into their 
authorized symbols such distinctions and for- 
mulae as were calculated to oppose the above- 
named errors. 

But it was not until the fifth century that 
anything definite was established respecting the 
union of these two natures in Christ ; and on this 
subject the most various modes of thinking and 
speaking prevailed, even among the catholic 
fathers themselves. Those difficult points in 
this doctrine, respecting which so much contro- 
versy existed after the fourth century, do not 
seem to have occasioned much trouble to the 
earlier Christians, who had not as yet learned 
to apply the metaphysics of the schools to the 
doctrines of religion. And it is found to be pre 
cisely so with common unlearned Christians at 
the present day, who have not their heads filled 
with those metaphysical systems, in conformity 
with which, as their models, others adjust and 
square all their opinions. Hence it does not 
appear that any Christian teacher of the first two 
centuries made any attempt to elucidate the 
mysteries of this subject, and even the heretics 
of this period passed them by without taking 
offence. All which was distinctly conceived 
of during this early period respecting the manner 
in which God became man, was simply this, 
that God, or the divine nature of Christ became 
visible in a true human body, and assumed real 
human flesh. Hence the earliest fathers and 
S3 T mbols are satisfied with the term, ivoopxttatf, 
2H 



362 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



without going into further explanations : Hioiftvca 
tig Tlbv ®sov aapxco^ivta. So Justin the Mar- 
tyr, Irenasus, Tertullian, (Adv. Prax. c, 2,) and 
even Origen, (rttpi 'Apywv.) 

[The general truth of the above statement of 
our author, that the early fathers supposed that 
the Logos assumed only a human body, is con- 
firmed by the testimony of Muenscher, Dogma- 
tic History (Translation), p. 63 ; of Hahn, Lehr- 
buch, s. 456 ; of Neander, Al. Kirchengesch, b. 
i. Ab. iii. s. 1063. But there is one exception 
to this statement in the opinions of Justin, which 
were formed under the influence of the Platonic 
philosophy. Adopting the threefold division of 
man into body, soul, and spirit, which was so 
common with the Platonic fathers, and of which 
a fuller account has been given in the first vo- 
lume, (s. 51, 1. 1, note,) he supposed that Christ 
consisted, like other men, of these three parts, 
except that, in place of the erring human reason, 
(Germ. Vemunft, in opposition to Verstand, or 
Gr. 7tv£vfia as opposed to ^vzr t ,) which is only 
a ray of the divine Logos, he had this Logos 
himself, as the higher controlling principle of 
his being. In these speculations with regard to 
the manner of the connexion between the divine 
and human in Christ, Justin went before the age 
in which he lived, and furnished the germ of the 
system which was afterwards further developed 
by Apollinaris, whose doctrinal predecessor 
Justin may therefore rightly be considered. Cf. 
Neander, Allg. Gesch. der chr. Rel. und Kir., 
b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1063.— Tr.] 

The systems of religion from which many of 
the earlier Christians were converted, appear to 
have contributed something towards enabling 
them to receive without difficulty the doctrine 
of the incarnation of the Son of God. They 
were familiarized from their youth, in the midst 
of heathenism, with the idea of the visible ap- 
pearance of the Deity in human forms ; and al- 
though when they afterwards became Christians, 
they considered the accounts of the incarnations 
of the heathen gods as fabulous, still, by having 
been familiar with such accounts, they were 
prepared to receive more easily the fact of the 
incarnation announced in Christianity ; they 
now had a seeming analogy for it. But on this 
very account, many of them conceived of the in- 
carnation as a degradation of the Deity. Vide 
s. 93. The converts from Judaism to Christian- 
ity had also some analogy for this doctrine in 
their previous system of belief, which very much 
facilitated their reception of it, since they were 
taught by their ancient books, even by those of 
Moses, to believe in the appearance of angels 
and of God himself in human form. The stu- 
dent may find many interesting views, illustrat- 
ing the relation of the various systems of hea- 
thenism to Christianity, in SchlegePs " Philos. 



der Geschichte;" also in Kreutzer's " Symbo- 
lik."— Tr.] 

But while, in opposition to the Docetae, the 
early fathers contended zealously for the real- 
ity of the human body of Christ; none in either 
of the contending parties, before the end of ths 
second century, thought it necessary to prove 
particularly that he had also a true human soul. 
This was not indeed directly denied, [except 
by Justin, as just mentioned — Tr.,] still the 
necessity of proving its existence was not at 
that time felt; nor indeed was the essential dis- 
tinction between the nature of the soul and body 
at all so obvious at that time, certainly it was 
not used in common practice, as it has since 
been. 

[Tertullian was the first who distinctly taught 
the doctrine of a proper human soul in Christ. 
In his anthropology he rejected the common 
division of man into body, soul, and spirit, and 
admitted only two distinct principles in all ani- 
mated existences — viz., body and soul ,• the lat- 
ter of which, however, in man he supposed en- 
dowed with higher properties than in the infe- 
rior orders. He had not therefore the convenient 
resort of the Platonic theologians, of interposing 
an animal tyvzy between the Logos and the body 
in Christ; but must either connect the Logos 
immediately and without intervention with the 
body, (which would be to attribute at once to 
the divine Logos the pain and sorrow, the pro- 
gress in knowledge, the ignorance, and all the 
other indications of an imperfect human soul, 
which appear in the life of Christ;) or he must 
ascribe to Christ a proper and entire human 
soul. With this necessity in view, he chose 
the latter part of the alternative, preferring the 
mystery and complexity attending the connexion 
between the divine and human to the absurdities 
resulting from the former theory, though com- 
mended by its simplicity to the speculative rea- 
son. Cf. Neander Geschichte, b. i. Abth. iii. 
s. 1064.— Tr.] 

After the third century, Origen first [?] gave 
importance to this doctrine of the human soul 
of Christ in his Theology, and brought it dis- 
tinctly into light, though not on the same grounds 
by which the doctrine is now supported. [Al- 
though Origen agreed with Tertullian in main- 
taining an entire human soul in Chris*., his 
views respecting the mode of union between 
the two natures, differed widely from those of 
Tertullian, and took their colouring from his 
peculiar philosophical system. The union of 
believers with Christ furnished him with an 
analogy for the connexion between the Logos 
and the human nature in Christ. If believers, 
he argued, are one spirit with their Lord, as Paul 
affirms, much more must this be true of thai 
soul which the Logos had taken into insepara- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 363 



ble union with himself. As the rtvev/xa in be- 
lievers is the actuating principle from which all 
their feelings and actions spring, much more is 
it in Christ, the forerunner of believers, the ac- 
tuating, controlling, and pervading principle, by 
which his entire humanity is guided and filled. 
By urging this analogy he drew upon himself 
the objection which has often been repeated 
against the same view, that he made Christ a 
mere man, distinguished from other believers 
only by a higher degree of the same participa- 
tion in the divine nature which they enjoyed. 
Whether this objection fairly lies against the 
views of Origen this is not the proper place to 
inquire. — Tr.] 

[But the theory respecting the person of 
Christ advanced by Tertullian, and developed 
and supported by Origen, was particularly of- 
fensive to Arius and Eunomius, and to all who 
contended for the subordination of the Logos to 
the Father. According to the earlier doctrine 
of the church, which they adopted, and which 
connected, the Logos immediately with the body 
of Christ, they had been able to allege all the 
appearances of limitation and natural imperfec- 
tion which he exhibited as proofs ag'ainst the 
doctrine of the absolute divinity of the Logos, 
and in favour of their own views of his subordi- 
nation. But of this argument they were de- 
prived when a human soul, of which all these 
imperfections could be predicated, was ascribed 
to Christ, and his higher nature was allowed in 
no sense to infringe upon his full and proper 
humanity. On the theory of Origen, it was no 
longer possible for them to invalidate the proofs 
of the absolute divinity of Christ by opposing 
the numerous evidences of subordination ap- 
pearing in his life and words, since all these 
must of course be understood of his humanity, 
leaving his divine nature, though intimately 
connected with the human, unimpaired by the 
limitations of the latter. Hence Arius and. his 
followers strenuously opposed the doctrine of 
the proper humanity of Christ, and insisted 
upon the older, indistinct, and undeveloped 
form of belief, by which the Logos merely ani- 
mated the body of Christ. Cf. Neander, Ges- 
chichte, u. s. w., b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904, ff. — 
Tr.] 

[While, on one side, the Arians at this pe- 
riod infringed upon the human nature of Christ, 
on the other side, Marcellus and Photinus, of 
whom we have before spoken, (s. 43,) infringed 
upon the divine nature and its personal union 
with the human. Marcellus, inclining, as he 
did, to Sabellianism,. supposed- there was a 
merely outward and temporary operation of the 
Logos upon Christ, though still, it must be al- 
lowed, in such a way as to secure the being of 
God in him. Photinus went further, and giv- 
ing great prominence to the human in Christ, 



made nothing more of the divine in him than the 
general illuminating influence which he enjoyed 
in common with the prophets and other ambas- 
sadors of God, though in a higher degree. This 
doctrine is properly called Photinianism. — Tr.] 

[Between these diverging tendencies of opi- 
nion, Arianism and Photinianism, the catholic 
fathers (e. g., Gregory of Nazianz, Gregory of 
Nyssa, and others) endeavoured to reconcile the 
personal union of two natures in Christ with the 
completeness of the human nature. We have 
thus all the elements of that violent controversy 
respecting the person of Christ which shortly 
followed.— Tr.] 

Now, after the middle of the fourth century, 
Apollinaris arose, and denied the existence of a 
human soul in Christ, or at least of the higher 
power of the soul. Vide s. 93, II. [His theory 
was in general the same as that of Justin, before 
mentioned, only more systematically developed. 
It seems to have resulted in a great measure from 
the speculative interest which endeavoured, to 
conceive clearly and to explain what had before 
been indistinct. And it has certainly the ad- 
vantage in many respects, and especially in 
point of distinctness and consistency, over the 
older indefinite belief, and over the Arian theory 
respecting the person of Christ, with which in 
general it agreed. It also sprung from the 
Christian interest to see in Christ the full, im- 
mediate, undisturbed manifestation of the Deity, 
which, as it seemed to Apollinaris, could not be 
on the theory of Origen, where a human soul 
was made the organ of the divine operations. 
The controversy against Apollinaris brought 
distinctly into view the necessity, in order to 
the purposes of man's redemption, of the entire- 
ness of the human nature of our Redeemer.— 
Tr.] 

After this period, the investigation of this 
point took a new turn, the first ground of which 
was laid in the Arian controversies of the same 
century. The endeavour now became to make 
everything clear and determinate; and since the 
metaphysics of the schools were becoming more 
and more common, the ancient simplicity was 
thought to be no longer sufficient. 

II. The two opposing systems, having their origin 
in the Fourth Century, and appearing in con- 
flict in the Fifth. 

The foundation of both of these was laid by 
the Arian and Apollinarian controversies. 

(1) Some of the Christians of the East — 
e. g., those of Syria, [and in general the disci- 
pies of the school at Antioch,] always made the 
most accurate distinction between the two na- 
tures in Christ, and in all their discourses used 
terms which indicated this distinction between 
the divine and human in his person, in the most 
definite and discriminating manner. This had 



364 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



been before done by some of the earlier teach- 
ers — e. g., Tertullian, (Adv. Prax. c. 27,) still 
more frequently by Origen, and by some of the 
earlier councils. But after the middle of the 
fourth century, when the Apollinarian contro- 
versies commenced, the orthodox teachers in 
Syria and the other Oriental provinces became 
still more accurate in making these distinctions, 
and especially were more decidedly opposed to 
every theory which took from the humanity of 
Christ its peculiar properties. These were the 
precursors of the Nestorians. 

(2) Others observed no such accuracy, and 
often employed phraseology which appeared to 
indicate an entire mixture of the two natures, 
and a deification of the human nature. This 
was occasioned by the Arian controversies ; for 
many, in order to exalt Christ in opposition to 
the Arians, seemed almost to forget that he was 
also a true man.* This tendency exhibited it- 
self more particularly in Egypt and in the 
Western church, and was carried out into fur- 
ther development at the end of the fourth and 
commencement of the fifth century. Those who 
opposed this tendency were of opinion that by 
phraseology of the kind which the Alexandrine 
theologians used the doctrine of Apollinaris was 
countenanced ; for his followers often used terms 
like the following — viz., God is man, is born, 
suffered, died, &c. ; Mary is the mother of God, 
($eotoxo$.) But the Alexandrine teachers could 
plead in their justification the example of many 

* There is reason to doubt the correctness of the 
reason here assigned by Dr. Knapp for this tendency 
of the Alexandrine school, (for it was this school 
which objected to the distinction of natures contend- 
ed for by the school of Antioch.) The Arians 
wholly agreed with the followers of Apollinaris, and 
with the theologians of Alexandria, in objecting to 
the distinction of natures in Christ, and in contend- 
ing for their mixture and oneness, and the transfer 
of the attributes belonging to each. And it is easy 
to see how this want of distinction should be pro- 
motive of their belief; since it enabled them to trans- 
fer to the higher nature of Christ the appearances 
of limitation in his life, and thus to obtain a proof 
of the subordination of the Logos, of which they 
would be deprived were an accurate distinction of 
natures introduced, and the application to the one 
of the predicates belonging to the other forbidden. 
It is a fact deserving of particular notice, that those 
who have contended most strenuously for the abso- 
lute divinity of Christ, have been also those who 
have insisted most upon the rights of his humanity, 
and for a careful distinction between the predicates 
of the two natures ; while those who have held that 
the Logos is the most perfect among all created be- 
ings, but not God in the proper sense, have equally 
infringed upon the humanity of Christ, and have 
always opposed the distinction of natures. It was 
not, then, in opposition to the Arian, but rather to 
the Photinian form of doctrine with regard to the 
person of Christ that the Alexandrine tendency 
found the occasion for its further development. — 
Tit.] 



of the older fathers who had used similar phrase- 
ology. Even Athanasius had spoken of a deifi- 
cation of the body of Christ after the resurrec- 
tion. Eusebius of Caesarea, and Gregory of 
Nyssa, had said that the human nature of Christ 
was swallowed up by the divine, &c. Some- 
times even Origen had used similar expressions. 
These were the precursors of the Monophyzites. 
In reality, however, these parties were more 
agreed than they believed themselves to be, or 
than they seemed to be, judging from their dif- 
ferent terminologies. Everything was now 
ready and prepared for the controversy, which 
finally broke out in the fifth century. 

[Neander, in his Church-History, (b. ii. 
Abth. iii. s. 946, ff.,) traces back these diverg- 
ing tendencies to the fundamental difference be- 
tween the Alexandrine school and that at Anti- 
och, as to the relation between reason and 
revelation. The Alexandrine school, in follow- 
ing its more contemplative and mystical direc- 
tion of mind, was disposed to assert the unin- 
telligibleness of the union of the two natures, 
and to magnify the mystery of this union, and 
to resist all attempts at definite conception and 
explanation. The school at Antioch, on the 
contrary, in conformity with its more free and 
speculative bias, while it did not assume fully 
to explain the vrtep %6yov of this union of na- 
tures, still undertook to discover how much in 
it was xwtu %6yov.— Tr.] 

III. Theory of Nestor ius, and the Controversy 
relating to it. 

NestOrius, Patriarch at Constantinople, being 
born and educated in Syria, adopted the Syrian 
form of doctrine with regard to the person of 
Christ, and endeavoured to employ terms which 
would accurately distinguish between his divine 
and human natures. This, however, had never 
before been done in Constantinople. After the 
Arian controversies, the term ^sorojeoj had been 
used very frequently in application to Mary, the 
mother of Christ, which was also a favourite 
term with the followers of Apollinaris in Syria. 
But when, in the year 428, Nestorius became 
patriarch at Constantinople, he was much sur- 
prised by this language. He objected to the 
term ^eotoxos, on the ground that it could not be 
said that God was born or died ; and instead of 
this term he proposed to substitute Xpt^otoxoj. 
With this the controversy commenced. 

His doctrine, as appears from his homilies, 
was this : " Christ had two vTtoatdaets, a divine 
and human, (meaning by V7t6ata6^, as many of 
the ancients did, natura, q>vat$, or as Tertullian 
himself employed it, substantia,') and only rtpo- 
tfwrtoy fiova^Lxov, one person. These two natures 
stood in the closest connexion (tfwa<j>£ia), which 
he considered as consisting principally in the 
agreement of will and action, but were no* 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 365 



mixed or transformed. Each nature still re- 
tained its peculiar attributes,. as is the case in 
man, who consists of two vrtosfdasis, soul and 
body. All these attributes and actions were 
predicable of one person, (rtpotfurtov,) but not 
of both the natures; the inferior were predica- 
ble only of the human nature ; the superior only 
of the divine nature. Accordingly, the terms, 
Deus naius, morluus est, Mater Dei, ®s 6j tWapxoj, 
were very unsuitable and unscriptural. These 
could be properly predicated only of Christ, (the 
name of the person.)" 

Hereupon Nestorius was openly attacked, at 
first in Egypt. His chief opponent was* Cyril, 
the patriarch of Alexandria, who maintained his 
own theory in opposition, and accused Nestorius 
of dividing Christ into two persons; because 
tyvGi$ was the word used at Alexandria for what 
Nestorius called vrcovfaois, and vrtocs fates for 
what he called rtpoa^jtov. They disagreed, 
therefore, more in words than in reality. At 
length, in the year 431, the followers of Nesto- 
rius were condemned as heretics by the council 
at Ephesus. The whole party separated from 
the catholic church, and continues in the East to 
the present day. [For a more full account of 
the doctrines of Nestorius, with the original pas- 
sages, cf. Gieseler, Lehrb. d. k. Cesch. b. i. s. 
85, flf. Neander, Gesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 951. 
As to the separate community of the Nestorians, 
cf. Neander in his Appendix to the History of 
this Doctrine, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1171. Also 
Mosheim (Murdock's Trans.), vol. i. p. 431, 
note. Whether the whole dispute between Nes- 
torius and Cyril was mere logomachy is a matter 
of dispute. — Tr.] 

IV. The Doctrine of Eutyches, and the Controversy 
respecting it in the Fifth Century. 

Eutyches, an abbot, and presbyter in cloister 
at Constantinople, was one of the most zealous 
opponents of Nestorius. In order to oppose his 
doctrine more successfully, he affirmed, after the 
year 448, that Christ had only one nature (ixla 
fvGes) after his deity and humanity were united. 
He called this nature, $vc$l$ ssaapxiofiivn, the na- 
ture made human. In this way he supposed he 
could express the most intimate connexion be- 
tween the two natures, which, in his opinion, 
were too widely separated by Nestorius, so as to 
make two persons in Christ. He meant, in fact, 
to say nothing more nor less than that there was 
only one Christ. The whole obscurity consisted 
in the word $v<yt$, which he understood to mean 
person,- as Athanasius himself did in the fifth 
century, and also Ephraem the Syrian. This 
controversy, therefore, like the former, was, in 
fact, mere logomachy.* Eutyches appealed, and 

* [The doctrine of Eutyches respecting the person 
of Christ has been more definitely stated by other 



with truth, to Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, 
and other ancient, and especially Egyptian, 
teachers, who appeared to abolish the distinction 
of the two natures. Eutychianism may therefore 
be truly said to have existed before Eutyches ; 
to prove which Salig published a treatise at 
Wolfenbiitel, 1724, 4to. 

Hence arose another unhappy division in the 
church. The patriarch of Constantinople joined 
with Pope Leo the Great in opposing Eutyches, 
and accused the latter of reviving the heresy of 
Apollinaris, and of denying the true humanity 
of Christ. He protested against this conclusion ; 
but they would not allow that his words admitted 
any other sense, and he was too obstinate to alter 
his terminology. At the Council at Chalcedon in 
the year 451, his doctrine was condemned as he- 
retical. Here arose the sect of the Monophy sites, 
which continues in the East to the present day. 

In order to render the difference between them- 
selves and the catholics and Nestorians clearly 
discernible, some of these Monophysites em- 
ployed paradoxical statements and phrases, like 
the following : — viz., one of the Trinity suffered 
and was crucified ; the deity of Christ so pene- 
trated his humanity as to render his body incor- 
ruptible, (a$$apfov.) This, however, was denied 
by others, because it favoured the Docetss. Some 
also, even of the Monophysites, believed that 
the divine nature was omniscient, but not the 
human nature connected with it, (Mark, xiii. 
32.) These were called Agnoetae. 

[Note. — As Photinianism and Apollinarianism 
were the opposite extremes of this doctrine in 
the former period, so now were Nestorianism 
and Eutychianism. Between these the catholic 
fathers took a middle course, and condemned, on 
the one hand, the ewdtyeia of Nestorius, as indi- 
cating a mere external and moral connexion be- 
tween the two natures in Christ, and, on the 
other, the ovyxvois or y.tfafio'kri of Eutyches, as 
indicating such an entire interpenetration of the 
two natures as must destroy the peculiarities of 
each. The catholic doctrine in opposition to 
these extremes is expressed in the following 
symbol, established at the Council at Chalcedon, 
451, under Marcian. 



writers on doctrinal history. The principal peculi- 
arity of it is placed in this point: while Eutyches 
admitted that before the incarnation (or, which was 
doubtless his meaning, according to conception, and 
not in reality) there were two natures in Christ, yet 
after this they did not remain distinct, but consti- 
tuted one nature, not merely by a avvd<psicL, as Nesto- 
rius held, but by a real ovyxvats or ftsra,6oh'i, so that 
his human nature could no longer be said to be con- 
substantial with that of other men. Briefly, it is 
Eutychianism to say that Christ is constituted of or 
from two natures, but does not exist in two natures,, 
(U dvo (pioewv, not iv 6vo <pvaeai.) Cf. Neander, Gesch, 
b. ii. Ab. iii. s. 1078. Also Murdock's Mosheim. 
vol. i. p. 433, Note.— Tr.] 
2h2 



366 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



'ErCofxevov toivvv tols ayt'otj rtatpdaiv, eva xal 
tbv avtbv b/xo?<.oyEiv vlbv tbv jcvptov t/awv lrfiovv 
XptffT'ov ovpqxJovid j aTiavttc, ix8i8di3xo/A£v, t I ?i s i o v 
tbv avtbv iv ^sbtqto xal tskstov tbv avtbv 
iv ai'^portOT'jjT't) ®sbv aTi^wj xal av^purtov 
d?^wj tbv avtbv ix -^v XV ^ ^"°7 LX V~S xal <5<i>- 
jU.a-r'oj, G/Aoovatov ta rCatpl xatd tvy) ^sbf/jta, xal 
buoovtiiov tbv avtbv rtfi-lv xa-ta tr\v d:^pa>7tbtyjta, 
xatartavta o/xocov yjfitv #«pt£ a/xaptLa^' ripb alu>vu>v 
fjLsv ix tov rtatpbs yivvq^ivta xata trjv ^sbtrjra, 
iri' E&xdtcov 8e twv vjfjLsputv ?bv avtbv, 80 ^aj xal 
6c,d trjv r^itipav aoitrjplav, ix Map/aj trfi rtapitivov 
t 'q$ ^for ox ov xatd trjv dv$pu>7tbtrjta, iva xal 
tbv avtbv Xpwr'ov, vlbv, xvpiov, /A-ovoyw/j-, ix 8vo 
tyvt3£u>v [iv 8io tyv<5z<5i\ asvy ^i3t'co$ at! p i ri- 
tc*$, d§t, a« p£ t co j, d^copttfT'coj yvcdpi^bfx.s- 
vov ov8a t u,ov trjg tZiv tyvasuv 6ta<J>opaj avrjpr {t uivr ( $ 
6cd t'^i' £' 2/cotftv, Gu>^o/xivrjs 8s paXkov trj$ I8ibt'/j- 
?o$ ixatipas tyvasus xal ftj 'iv rt p 6 ffco rt. o v, xal 
/xlav v Tib 6t a? iv Gvvtps%ovVrj<;, ovx uj 8vo rtpb- 
(jcorta jXEpi^bfisvov ri 8iaipov{i£vov, d%%' iva xal tbv 
avtbv vlbv xal fJLOvoy£vr r $sbv hoyov, xvpiov 'ivjaovv 
"Kpiatov xa^drtsp dvu^Ev ol rtpofyyjtao rtspl avtov 
xal avtbs ^aaj b xvpio$ Itjoovs Xpttfr 6j i^srtai8svG£, 
xal to tZiV rtatipu>v rjfilv rtapa8s8coxs cv/J-fio'kov. 

There can be no reasonable doubt which of 
the two readings, ix 8vo tyvsscov, or fa 8vo fyvosai, 
ought to be preferred. The whole force of the 
symbol, as far as it is directed against Euty- 
chianism, lies in the latter reading, since Euty- 
ches would allow that Christ was constituted 
ix 8vo tyvasuv. The reading fa 8vo fyvGecst is sup- 
ported by good authority, probably from the 
whole course of events at the Council of Chal- 
cedon, and more consistent than the other with 
the context, as the word yvcop^o/xevov is of diffi- 
cult construction with ix, and, on the contrary, 
reads naturally with iv. Cf. Neander, b. ii. 
Abth. iii. s. 1110— Tr.] 

V. The Theory and Sect of the Monothelites. 

This sect arose in the seventh century, from 
the attempt of some, who were rather inclined 
to the side of the Monophysites, to unite the 
Nestorians and Monophysites with the catholic 
church. They persuaded the emperor Heraclius 
to enact, that Christ, after the union of his two 
natures, had only one ivill and one action of the 
will. To this it was thought all parties might 
assent, and thus become united. At first, many 
weie inclined to adopt this opinion, and among 
others, the patriarchs at Constantinople and 
Rome. But a number of councils were held 
upon the subject, and the catholics at last came 
to the conclusion that this opinion would intro- 
duce only a different form of the doctrine of 
Eutyches. They therefore maintained a twofold 
will in Christ — i. e., one for his divine, and one 
for his human nature; but at the same time that 
these were never opposed and always agreed. 
The other party maintained that there was but 



one will ; since the human will of Christ did not 
act separately, but was subject to the divine will, 
and governed by it. Both parties were right in 
opinion, and only misunderstood each other. 
The latter, however, was outvoted, and at the 
third Council at Constantinople, in the year 680, 
was condemned as heretical ; and thus the sect 
of the Monothelites arose in the East. [Cf. 
Hahn, s. 464. Gieseler, s. 162.] 

Note. — Another controverted point was the 
relation of Christ to the Father, in the union of 
his two natures. The ancient fathers had com- 
monly used the appellation Sun of God, as a name 
of the divine nature of Christ, and not as a name 
of his person and office. They found some texts 
of scripture, however, in which the human nature 
of C hrist is also plainly designated by this name ; 
as Luke, i. 35. In order to relieve themselves 
from this difficulty, without relinquishing their 
position, they said, "Christ, as God, was the 
natural Son of God, (i. e., he was, in a literal^ 
sense, eternally generated by the Father, he re- 
ceived his deity communicated to him from eter- 
nity, Ps. ii.,) but as man he was the Son of 
God by adoption — i. e., by the communication 
of the divine nature at the time of his concep- 
tion, he was raised as a man to this dignity. 
And in this there is no heresy. But as these 
terms and representations respecting adoption 
were frequently employed by the Nestorians, 
they were gradually omitted by the catholics. 
This doctrine was, however, revived in Spain in 
the eighth century, 783, et seq., by Felix, Bi- 
shop of Urgel (Urgelitanus), and was approved 
by many in the West. Others regarded it as a 
revival of Nestorianism ; councils were held 
upon the subject in Italy and Germany ; and at 
length the opinion of the Adoptionists was con- 
demned as heretical. 

Respecting all these controversies, vide 
Walch, Ketzergeschichte. 

These unhappy dissensions should serve as a 
warning to every Christian who loves peace, not 
to take upon himself to define and decide respect- 
ing subjects which the holy scriptures have left 
undecided; as Morus truly observes, p. 138, s. 
10, coll. s. 101. 

SECTION CIH. 

HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS CONTINUED ; THE AN- 
CIENT ECCLESIASTICAL TERMINOLOGY RESPECT- 
ING THIS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED. 

I. Terminology of the Fathers. 

The ecclesiastical terminology on this subject 
came gradually into use, and originated partly 
before the controversies of the fifth century, 
partly at the time of these controversies, and in 
consequence of them. Many ancient terms were 
differently defined and understood after that 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 367 



period. This indefiniteness of phraseology, and 
the various use of terms, were the principal occa- 
sion of these controversies. The terms employed 
ought, first of all, to have been explained and 
understood. 

(1) Some ancient general terms respecting the 
person of Christ, and the relations and actions of 
his deity and humanity. 

(a) The ancient fathers were in the habit of 
calling the mutual relation of the deity and hu- 
manity united in Christ, oixovoula, which signi- 
fies arrangement, institution, regulation ; also, 
the fashion and manner in which anything is 
done or arranged. So it is used by Polybius, 
and Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, and by 
Paul, Ephes. i. 10. In the same way, Tertul- 
lian (Adv. Prax. 2) used the word oeconomia, 
and rendered it dispensatio. 

(b) They endeavoured to find some term 
which should appropriately designate the whole 
person of Christ, as composed of deity and hu- 
manity. As the New Testament contains no sin- 
gle word of this kind, they at last decided upon 
the word §sav8po$ or £sai£p<orfoj, God-man; as 
Tertullian had been accustomed to say, Deus et 
homo, and Origen ®so<; xal ai^piortoj. 

(c) They -called the power which the deity 
and humanity of Christ had of working in com- 
mon, ivspysia ^savSpixrj, vis, sive operatio deovi- 
rilis. This phrase first occurs in the Pseudo- 
Dionysius Areopagitus, Epist. 4. Theologians, 
therefore, afterwards called the particular actions 
of Christ, as God and man, or his mediatorial 
works, operationes deoviriles ; also, ariots'kso^ata. 
Vide s. 105. 

(2) Various terms were originally used to de- 
note the two subjects (rtpayua-ta, res, as Cyril 
of Alexandria calls them) connected in Christ. 
In the Latin church the oldest term was substan- 
tia. So Tertullian, "substantias duae, — caro et 
spiritus," Adv. Prax. 27. They had previous- 
ly been contented with the simple formula : 
" Christum esse Deum et hominem verum." 
The word substantia was still used in this sense 
by the Latin church in the fourth century, and 
sometimes even by Leo the Great in the fifth 
century. It signified, as they used it, ens sin- 
gulare, or individuum. It was, however, re- 
garded as ambiguous, since it also signified ex- 
istence itself 'And that which really is. The word 
natura was gradually found to be more appro- 
priate and definite. It had been early used by 
Ambrosius; but after the Council at Chalcedon, 
in the fifth century, it became, by means of Leo 
the Great, the usual and characteristic term of 
the catholic fathers. 

In the Greek church, also, many terms were 
originally in use. (a) 'TrfcWowtj. This word 
answers exactly to the Latin substantia. It was 
used by Nestorius, and before him by many 
whose orthodoxy was never doubted, (&) <£v6i$. 



This word was used at the same time in Egypt, 
and was one cause of the controversy between 
Cyril and Nestorius. Vide s. 102, iii. (c) Owi'o. 
This word was early in frequent use ; but through 
the efforts of Cyril and the Roman bishop, in the 
fifth century, the word ^vtytj became current as 
orthodox. 

(3) The terms used to denote the whole Christ, 
as consisting of two natures. 

The Latin church used the word persona for 
this purpose ; and this, being very definite and 
unambiguous, has been retained. Respecting 
its definition, &c, vide s. 104. But the Greek 
church had a great variety of terms to express 
the same thing, which occasioned the greatest 
confusion. 

(«) IIpocfwTtov. This word was, in fact, the 
least ambiguous, and answered exactly to the 
Latin persona, (a suppositum i'ntelligens, which 
has its own proper subsistence.) In many 
churches this was originally the most common 
word. It was so even among the Syrians, who 
derived their word parsopa from it. Accordingly, 
Nestorius said, rtpoauntov sv xal hvo vrioa- 
Tfdasis (natures) iv Xpicrtf^. But the word 
was uncommon in Constantinople, Egypt, and 
elsewhere. In these places they used instead 
the word — 

(b) 'Trtotitacus. Among the Greeks this word 
means the actual existence (vTtap&s) of a thing, 
the existing thing ; also, an individual. It was 
therefore a far more ambiguous word than the 
other. Cyril used it to denote the whole Christ; 
but Nestorius, his separate natures. Vide s. 102, 
III. Cyril and the Roman bishop said : tlj 
Xpi.tfT'os, /xi a vrtoctaa l$, 8vo tyvcl s t j iv Xptcr- 
^9. This party prevailed, and introduced vitoa- 
taaie, as the common word by which the orthodox 
were distinguished. Even they, however, some- 
times still used the word rtpoGiortov. The word 
vitotsticufcs may also have been regarded as more 
scriptural, from Hebrews, i. 2, ^apajcr'^p vnos'td- 
tf£<oj; but here the person is not the subject of 
discourse. Vide s. 100. The Nestorians still 
adhered to their 7tp6acs7iov and parsopa. 

(c) <3?i3(Ttj. This word was applied to the per- 
son of Christ by many teachers of the fourth 
century, long before Eutyches. Athanasius and 
Ephraem the Syrian had affirmed, without being 
pronounced heretics, that there was pia tyvais 
in Christ. Eutyches, then, in the fifth century, 
thought that this word, already authorized by 
the catholic fathers, was the best adapted to 
express the most intimate connexion between 
the deity and humanity, in opposition to Nesto- 
rius. Vide s. 102, iv. His opponents, how- 
ever, understood the word differently, and so 
made heresy out of it. 

(4) The words, comparisons, and established 
distinctions employed to illustrate the manner of 
the union of the two natures. 



368 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



(a) The most ancient words used by the 
fathers to denote the union of the two natures 
CGiiVey the idea of a mixture of these natures. 
Among- others was the word svyxpaat^ commixtio, 
and misceri, which is used by Tertuliian (adv. 
Prax.) and by Cyprian, and even in the fourth 
and fifth centuries by Gregory of Nyssa and 
Ephraem the Syrian. This word occasionally 
escaped even from Leo the Great, the zealous 
opponent of Eutyches. Of the same kind were 
the words which frequently occur in the writings 
of the Grecian, and more especially the Egyp- 
tian, teachers of the third and fourth centuries — 
viz., /jL£T;aj3o%ri, /Astartoiriais, fXBta/xop^Gig. But 
the word cwdfyeux was preferred by Nestorius 
and some others. But for this very reason it 
was rarely employed by his opponents. The 
other words avyxpciais, x. f. X., which denote a 
mixture of natures, were rejected at the Council 
at Chalcedon, because they were used by Euty- 
ches, and the word cwotfcj, unto, was there esta- 
blished in their place. 

(b) The illustrations of the manner of this 
union employed by the ancients. 

(a) Comparisons and images. Some of these 
are very gross, and exhibit very imperfect con- 
ceptions. Tertuliian said, (Adv. Prax. 27,) 
*The deity and humanity in Christ were mix- 
tura quaedam, ut electrum ex auro et argento." 
Origen and Basilius the Great compared this 
union to iron heated in the fire, (penetrated 
through and through by the fire ;) Ephraem the 
Syrian, to a compounded medicine ; Origen, in 
another passage, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, 
to the marriage connexion {two, one jlesh) — a 
comparison of a more moral cast; Cyril of Alex- 
andria and Leo the Great, to the union of soul 
and body, which comparison they particularly 
advocated. 

(j3) Many new terminologies were invented 
after the controversies commenced, in order to 
distinguish one sect from another, and to obviate 
various unscriptural representations. Thus, the 
natures in Christ were said to be. connected 
d^cop/ffT'cos, dScatpsVcoj, and aBoa'Kvtcc^ — i. e., in- 
dissolubly and permanently, and not merely for 
a season; for the Gnostics taught that the vEon 
Christ was separated from the man Jesus at the 
time of the death of the latter; and Marcellus 
taught that the Logos would at some future time 
return to the Father. In opposition to these 
and similar errors, the above determinations 
were therefore adopted by the Council at Chal- 
cedon. Thus, too, in opposition to Eutyches, 
this union was said to be dtrvy^wj, (such that 
a third nature had not arisen from the union of 
the two natures, as when material things are min- 
gled ;) each nature existed by itself, unaltered in 
its kind, atpint^. Christ, it was said, should 
be one, sv 7tp6aoi7iov, uia vrtoaifaais &a,v$pu>7tov. 
This iVwcrtj was said to be ovcrcwSr/j, (not appa- 



rent, but real ;) vrtorrtattxrj, (such that the two 
natures remained unchanged as to their kind, 
although they were essentially united — a term 
used by Cyril;) vrtspfyvctxyj, (supernatural,) &c. 
After the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the 
schoolmen of the West adopted these termino- 
logies into their systems. The orthodox Greeks 
also constantly preserved them, in opposition to 
the Monophvsites, Nestorians, and other here- 
tics. 

II. Later Distinctions. 

During the sixteenth century, after the death 
of Luther and Melancthon, not only were the 
old subtilties in the doctrine respecting the na- 
ture and person of Christ revived by many Lu- 
theran theologians, but many new ones were in- 
troduced. The occasion of this was, the contro- 
versy respecting the Lord's Supper between the 
zealous adherents of Luther and the Reformed 
theologians. The Reformed doctrine was at that 
time approved by many Lutheran theologians. 
The opposing party, therefore, and especially 
James Andrea, Chancellor at Tubingen, and 
Mart. Chemnitz, endeavoured, by new distinc- 
tions in the doctrine respecting the person of 
Christ, to draw the line of distinction between 
the two systems as finely as possible. Eccle- 
siastical authority was given to these distinc- 
tions by the " Form of Concord." Such sub- 
tilties as these do not appear in the " Loci The- 
ologici" of Melancthon. On this subject the 
following particulars should be known — viz., 

(1) Luther affirmed the true and substantial 
presence of the body and blood of Christ in the 
Lord's Supper. But in the sixteenth century 
many of his disciples and zealous followers went 
beyond their teacher in this matter. Some of 
them advocated in fact, if not in words, a physical 
presence of the body of Christ. Beza, on the 
other hand, and other Reformed theologians, 
shewed, as Zwingli had done before, that this 
could not be supposed ; considering that the 
human body of Christ is now in heaven, and 
could not, as a real human body, be present in 
more than one place at the same time. 

(2) Against these objections the Lutherans 
maintained, either the actual constant omnipre- 
sence of the body of Christ, as Andrea appears 
to have done, or, that it could be present every 
where (ubique), whenever and wherever he 
would, and the case required. This was the 
view of Luther, Chemnitz, Hiilsemann, and 
many others. Hence they were called by their 
opponents Ubiquitarians, and there was much 
controversy respecting the omnipresence of the 
body of Christ. 

(3) In order to render this presence of the 
body of Christ more intelligible, assistance was 
sought from the doctrine de communication idio- 
maktm interna et reali. Here Chemnitz was 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 3G9 



the most active. They proceeded on the ground 
that the human nature of Christ was united in 
the most intimate manner with the divine nature, 
that it was penetrated, as it were, by the divine 
nature, and received all divine attributes by com- 
munication. They invented for this purpose 
the "genus communicationis idiomatum majes- 
taticum." At length they displayed this fine 
web of subtilty and terminology in the " Form 
of Concord." 

(4) Hereupon new dissensions and schisms 
arose in the Lutheran church in the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries. For the theologians 
of Brandenburg- rejected the " Form of Concord" 
altogether, and the theologians of Helmstadt dis- 
approved and rejected particular doctrines con- 
tained in it, such as the doctrine of the omni- 
presence of the human nature of Christ. The 
controversy which thus arose did great injury 
to the Lutheran church. 

SECTION CIV. 

A BRIEF EXHIBITION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYS- 
TEM RESPECTING THE PERSON AND THE TWO 
NATURES OF CHRIST; AN EXPLANATION OF THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY NOW IN USE IN 
THE DOCTRINE " DE COMMUNICATION IDIOMA- 
TUM ;" AND A CRITICAL JUDGMENT UPON THE 
SAME. 



From s. 102, 103, the gradual origin and in- 
crease of the learned ecclesiastical distinctions 
and terminologies is clearly seen. The most 
important of these only are still retained. How 
many of them are plainly founded in the holy 
scriptures may be determined by s. 100, 101. 

I. Established Form of Doctrine respecting the Person 
of Christ, and the Union of his Two Natures. 

There are two natures in Christ, the divine 
and human. The Son of God (i. e., the divine 
nature) united himself so closely and intimately 
with the human nature, that one person is made 
from these two united natures. Person, in philo- 
sophical language, is a rational existence, (beasts 
then are not persons,) which has its being and 
subsistence in itself (subjectum intelligens, vo- 
lens, libere agens.) Thus Boethius in his book, 
" de persona et natura," cap. 2. The abstract 
of person, or the existence of such a being, is 
called personalitas. This union, therefore, in 
being personal, (unio personalis,) is distin- 
guished from the other lands of union of God 
with his creatures, and even from that of God 
(the Father) with the man Jesus; vide s. 101. 
We may say that the triune God is in some 
sense united with Jesus. But neither the Fa- 
ther nor the Holy Spirit have so connected 
themselves with the human nature of Christ, 
that we can say that the Father or the Holy 
Spirit became man. This can be said, on the 
47 



authority of the Bible, only of the Son of God. 
The condition which arises from this union is 
called unio (e vlogis) ; the beginning of this 
union, or the act of uniting, unitio, which is 
therefore synonymous with incarnatio, (ev&dpxa- 
ortj.) This personal union is a real, not simply 
a moral, mystical, or figurative union; still it is 
a supernatural union, such that one nature is, as 
it were, penetrated by the other (permeata ,•) al- 
though the manner, the internal modus, of this 
is to us inexplicable, and such that the most in- 
timate connexion subsists between the two in 
their mutual actions. Theologians call this 
union of one nature with the other, and their 
mutual relations, rtspt^iop^ffcj, observing, how- 
ever, that no mixture (avyxvois) of the two na- 
tures takes place, and also that this union is in- 
separable and indissoluble, (d^wptWwj.) Other 
distinctions and terminologies, which had their 
rise in the controversies relating to this subject, 
may be seen in s. 103. 

II. Effects of this Personal Union of the Two Natures; 
and the Consequences deduced from it. 

(1) The impersonality, avvitooxaola, imperso- 
nalitas, of the man Jesus, or of the human nature 
of Christ. Theologians maintain that the hu- 
man nature of Christ does not subsist in itself, 
but in the person of the Son of God, or that in 
itself it is awtoatatog, and that it has iwrtoata- 
aiav in him. For, if personality is ascribed to 
the human nature of Christ, he must be con- 
ceived as composed of two distinct persons. 
This distinction was directed principally against 
the opinions ascribed to the Nestorians, and 
also against the opinions of the Apollinarians, 
Monotheletae and Agnoetee. If we would form 
any clear idea from this distinction, we must 
understand it, not in a physical, but in a moral 
sense, as Ernesti remarks in his programm "De 
incarnatione." All that is intended by it is this, 
that the man Jesus never was a mere man, and 
never acted from simple human power (d<j>' lav- 
tov), in any such way as to be separated from 
the Son of God, and, as it were, independent of 
him. And this is the representation of the New 
Testament. When, therefore, Christ says, /do, 
i" teach, &c, he speaks of the whole Christ, in 
which the divine is the superior and reigning 
nature, by which the inferior or human nature is 
governed and used as an instrument, just as w r e, 
when we speak of ourselves, our persons, mean 
soul and body together. 

Note. — In this way, and in this way only, can 
we explain the fact that Christ should speak of 
himself in the very same discourse, and indeed 
in the very same sentence, as man, and again in 
such terms as the eternal and immutable God 
alone uses of himself — e. g., John, xvii. 5, 
"Glorify me with the glory which I had with 
thee before the world was;" in the same man- 



370 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



ner as, when we speak of ourselves, we some- 
times employ terms which are applicable only 
to a spiritual nature, and, at other times, terms 
which are applicable only to a corporeal nature ; 
the former in relation to the soul, the latter in 
relation to the body ; because these two natures 
are united in us in one person. 

(2) Another consequence deduced from this 
community of the two natures is, that one nature 
communicates its own attributes to the other, (com- 
municare idiomata.) 

(a) If by this statement it is meant that the 
properties of each of the two natures are regarded 
as belonging to the whole person, it is unobjec- 
tionable. For in the very same way we ascribe 
to man the attributes of soul and body, though 
exceedingly diverse. Accordingly, the New 
Testament and the discourses of Christ himself 
represent that the glory which Christ, as to his 
divine nature, had with the Father from eternity, 
belonged also to his human nature, and, so far as 
this nature was susceptible of this glory, was 
communicated to it, and became particularly 
visible from the commencement of his state of 
exaltation. Vide John, xvii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 9 — 1 1 . 
Cf. s. 101. 

(&) There is great objection, however, to the 
opinion, that all the attributes of one nature are 
really (interne et realiter") communicated to the 
other. But the strict Lutheran theologians of the 
sixteenth century, and especially Chemnitz, were 
led by their views respecting the Lord's supper 
to insist strongly upon this opinion. Vide s. 
103, II. To meet the objections which would 
be brought against it, they made the following 
limitations — viz., 

(a) Because the Deity is incapable of change, 
the attributes of the human were not commu- 
nicated to the divine nature, but only the attri- 
butes of the divine to the human. This com- 
municatio idiomatum was not, then, mutual or 
reciprocal. 

(j3) ^//the attributes of the divine nature can- 
not be communicated to the human, but only the 
attributa operativa, (those which imply action 
and activity,) e. g., omnipotence, goodness, jus- 
tice, &c. The attributa quiescentia, (those which 
imply rest and inaction,) e. g., infinity, eternity, 
&c, are incommunicable. Vide s. 18, III. 2. 

But this opinion, after all these fine distinc- 
tions, is not founded in the scriptures, and the 
texts cited in its behalf do not prove it. Vide 
infra, de propositionibus idiomaticis. Moreover, 
it is liable to many objections. 

(n) Nothing more was necessary in order to 
the action of the human nature of Christ, than 
for it to be determined and impelled by the di- 
vine nature in something the same way as the 
human body is impelled by the soul; in which 
caso each part retains its own attributes, and 
there is no necessity for the attributes of the 



soul to be communicated to the body. This was 
the view of many of the most ancient and or- 
thodox fathers of the church. 

(2) The attributes of the Deity are insepara- 
ble. Where there is one, there are all. And no 
conception, certainly no clear conception, can he 
formed of such a division. The divine nature 
is altogether incapable of change. And if the 
human nature were changed in any essential 
respect, Christ could not continue a true man. 

(j) Christ himself said, that as a man he was 
unacquainted with many things. He changed 
his place as a man. He learned, and increased 
in wisdom. How, then, can I say, that as a 
man he was omniscient, omnipresent, and all- 
wise! 

It is far better to be content with the more 
simple and more scriptural opinion, that each 
nature retained its peculiar attributes, and that 
the human nature was supported, guided, and 
endowed with strength and wisdom by the di- 
vine nature, whenever there w T as occasion. Vide 
s. 100, 101. And many good Lutheran theolo- 
gians, even of the sixteenth century, acknow- 
ledged that this was sufficient. 

(3) Still another consequence deduced from 
the personal union of the two natures is the 
communio operalionum — i. e., all the actions 
done by either of the two natures must be con- 
sidered as the actions of the whole person. So 
whether Christ acts from the impulse of the di- 
vine nature, or as man, in either case the whole 
person acts. In the same way the actions of 
a man, whether of his soul or his body, are 
ascribed, without hesitation, to the whole per- 
son. The most rational and intelligible opinion 
on this subject, however, is this, that the hu- 
manity of Christ is the instrument by which his 
deity acts; though in such a manner that the 
peculiar attributes and properties of his humani- 
ty are not set aside. In all those actions, there- 
fore, where the humanity of Christ had occasion 
for instruction, support, and guidance, it re- 
ceived the same from his divinity. Such actions 
(and all which belong to his mediatorial work 
are such) are called by theologians, operationes 
deoviriles. Vide s. 103, I. 1. 

The ancients expressed the same thing by 
saying that there was one will in Christ, and 
that his humanity assented to the will of his di- 
vinity, and acted according to it. So Nestorius, 
and even the orthodox of that age. But after 
the controversy of the catholics with the Mono- 
theletas, the former advocated two wills in 
Christ, the latter only one. Vide s. 102, V. 

(4) From the theory of the personal union, 
and the communication of attributes, various for- 
mula? and modes of speech have been derived. 
Only a part of them occur in the scriptures. 
The rest, which should have been omitted, were 
occasioned by theological controversies. They 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 



are called propositions, and are divided into two 
principal classes. Respecting all the minutiae 
of this subject, vide Baumgarten, Glaubens- 
lehre, where they are treated at length. [Cf. 
also Hahn, s. 94, s. 445.] 

I. " Proposltiones Personates sive Hypostaticae" — i. 
e., such as are derived from the notion of the Per- 
sonal Union itself of the Two Natures in Christ. 
These are again divided into two classes. 

(1) Propositions in which the peculiar proper- 
ties of either of the two natures are ascribed to 
the whole person, or in which the concrete of the 
person is connected with the concrete of either of 
the two natures — e. g., Christ is man, the son of 
man, the son of David, where the concrete of the 
person is connected with the concrete of the 
human nature ; or, Christ is God, the only begot- 
ten Son of God (in the theological sense), where 
the concrete of the person is connected with the 
concrete of the divine nature. Such propositions 
occur in the Bible and occasion no mistake. 

(2) Propositions in which the concrete of one 
nature is predicated of the other nature (concreta 
naturarum de se invicem praedicantur) — e. g., 
God is man, the man Jesus is God, the son of 
Mary, or of David, is God. Theologians observe 
here, that the case is not the same with the ab- 
stracta naturarum. Thus it would be improper 
to say, the humanity (of Christ) is the deity (of 
Christ.) Anciently, in the fourth and fifth cen- 
turies, such propositions were frequently em- 
ployed, vide s. 102; but they were objected to 
by Nestorius. They are indeed capable of a 
proper explanation, but they easily occasion 
mistake. Besides, they have no analogy; as 
nobody says, animus est corpus, corpus est ani- 
mus, &c. The texts which are appealed to 
(Rom. i. 3 ; Luke, i. 35; Matt. xvi. 13, 16) are 
not in point. For the appellation, Son of God, 
in these texts^ may be the name of person and 
of office, and is not necessarily the name of na- 
ture. In the text, 1 Cor. xv. 47, " the second 
Adam is the Lord from heaven," xvpio$ also is 
the name of person, and not of nature. 

II. " Propositiones Idiomaticse, sive de Communica- 
tione Idiomatum ,•" such as denote the Communi- 
cation of Attributes, (« Idiomata, Proprietates, 
Affectiones") These, again, are divided into two 
principal classes. 

(1) Propositions in which the attributes of one 
nature are ascribed to the whole person (named 
from one of the two natures), or in which the 
subject is either a concrete of person or a con- 
crete of nature, but the predicate is an idioma of 
the divine or human nature. These are divided 
into three classes — viz., 

(A) Propositions in which the attributes and 
actions of one nature or the other are ascribed 
to the whole person; or, where the subject is a 



concretum personse, but the predicate an idioma 
alterutrius naturae. A proposition of this kind 
is called idiomatica, or, avtihorix^, (avtlBoci^ 
retributio.) This has analogy in its favour — 
e. g., man (the soul) thinks ; man {the body) eats. 
In this case, both of these actions are predicated 
of the whole person. Such propositions fre- 
quently occur in the scriptures — e. g., Christ 
suffered, rose from the dead, wrought miracles by 
his own power, is mortal, is omnipotent. Thus 
in John, xvi. 51, "/ (the whole person speaks) 
came from heaven, (the divine nature;") John, 
x. 12, " I lay down my life (the human nature) 
for the sheep ,•" and in many other texts. Vide 
Moms, p. 143, s. 4. 

(B) Propositions in which the attributes pecu- 
liar to each nature are predicated of the same, or 
in which the subject is a concrete of one nature, 
and the predicate an idioma of the same nature ; 
as when we say, the soul is immortal, the body is 
mortal. Thus Matt. ii. 1, Jesus was born; Acts, 
ii. 22, 23, Jesus was crucified; or, making the 
subject a concrete of the divine nature, the only 
begotten Son of God, (if this name is given to the 
divine nature,) was from the beginning, created 
the world, is omnipotent, &c. This language is 
very common in the Bible; and the nature 
which is the subject of discourse is often ex- 
pressly mentioned — e. g., Christ xafa capjca. 
Vide Morus, p. 142, s. 1, n. 1. 

(C) Propositions in which the peculiar attri- 
butes of one nature are predicated of the other. 
These propositions are divided into two classes, 
corresponding to the two natures in Christ. 

(a) Propositions in which the attributes of 
the human nature are predicated of the divine 
nature, or where the subject is a concretum di~ 
vinse naturae, but the predicate an idioma naturae 
humanae. This is called tStoyto^tr^, because 
the divine nature appropriates to itself what be- 
longs to the human nature. The texts cited as 
examples are the following: — viz., Gal. iv. 4, 
"God sent his Son, born of a woman;" Rom. 
v. 10, " We are reconciled with God, through 
the death of his Son;" Acts, iii. 15, "The prince 
(auctor) of life was slain;" 1 Cor. ii. 8, "Ye 
have crucified the Lord of glory ;" but especially 
Acts, xx. 28, " God bought the church with his 
blood." But the reading in the last passage is 
very uncertain. Vide s. 37. And though some 
of these and other texts may possibly be exam- 
ples in point, they are not distinctly so. For 
the appellation Son, Son of God, in these pas- 
sages, may be the name of the whole person of 
the God-man (Messiah), and is not necessarily 
the name of the divine nature. 

(b) Propositions in which the attributes of 
the divine nature are predicated of the human 
nature; or in which the subject is a concrete of 
the human nature, but the predicate an attribute 
of the divine nature. This is called, xoivuvia, 



372 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



TfZiV ^rlLCOV, SC ihio>p.aTf<x>v, fitTfahoGis, vrtspv-^ccxfis, 
jS&ruotftj, genus avy^fxatixov, sive majestaticum, 
because divine attributes are communicated to 
the man Jesus — -e. g., Jesus, or the Son of man, 
is almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, &c. The 
most probable texts are John, iii. 13; vi. 62, 
" The $o?i of man will return to heaven, where 
he was before." But these do not teach that 
divine attributes are communicated to the human 
nature of Christ; and, in truth, the phrase Ttoj 
dv^pwrtou here denotes the whole person, the 
Messiah, although the appellation is taken from 
his humanity. The texts, Matt, xxviii. 18, 20, 
"All power is given to me in heaven and in 
earth," and " I am with you," &c, (from which 
the communication of omnipotence and omnipre- 
sence to the humanity of Christ has been con- 
cluded,) are irrelevant to this point; for they 
treat of the state of exaltation, and the whole 
Christ speaks of himself, and not merely his 
humanity. For other texts, vide Morus, p. 
144, n. 3. 

Note. — This whole third class of propositions 
was disapproved even by many of the ancient 
fathers, who were of the opinion that it should 
be entirely discarded, because it has no clear 
authority from scripture. So Origen and many 
others. But Cyril and Leo the Great, in the 
fifth century, advocated these propositions in 
opposition to Nestorius. And in the seven- 
teenth century, Chemnitz and the "Form of 
Concord" brought them again into vogue; and 
especially the genus propos. auchematicum, on 
account of their bearing on the doctrine of the 
Lord's supper, Morus, 1, 1. n. 2. 

They ought to be discarded for the following 
reasons — viz., (1) They have no clear support 
from scripture; vide supra. (2) They are con- 
tradictory to all the analogies to which we can 
appeal in other cases. Who would say, the 
soul dies; the mind eats, digests; the body 
thinks, philosophizes 1 although, indeed, the 
concretum naturae, man, is used in such cases. 
They give rise to propositions which, though 
capable of a reasonable explanation, are very 
offensive in their form, and the occasion of ridi- 
cule from the thoughtless. Such are the fol- 
lowing: God died, and was buried; the man 
Jesus is eternal; Mary was the mother of God; 
one of the Trinity was crucified, &c. All the 
offensiveness of these propositions is removed 
by using the name of the person, Christ. (3) 
Such expressions lead the great mass of men 
into gross and material conceptions of God, and 
confirm them in such conceptions, which they 
are always inclined to form. For this reason 
they were discarded by Nestorius, though even 
he admitted that they might be explained in 
sjuch a way as to give a true sense. Cf. Morus, 
p. 145, n. 2. 

(2) The second class of propositiones idioma- 



ticas comprises those propositions in which the 
works belonging to the mediatorial office oi 
Christ are ascribed to the person, named from 
either of the two natures, or from both united. 
This class is called genus propositionum ojto- 
Tfs%813fA.aTfi.x6v, from arCors'hiny.aTfa, effectus sive 
opus, sc. mediatorium. This is thus described 
in the language of the schools : " Jpotelesmata, 
sive actiones ad opus mediatorium pertinentcs 
tribuuntur subjecto, vel ab humana, vel a divina, 
vel ab utraquc natura denominator This cor- 
responds with analogy; because these actions 
were performed through the union of the two 
natures. Such propositions frequently occur in 
the scriptures, and are founded upon the com- 
munio operationum utriusque naturae. Thus I 
can say, Christ raises the dead, redeems and 
judges men. But I can also say, either that the 
Son of God, (in the theological sense,) or that 
Jesus, the Son of man, does the same things; 
Luke, ix. 56; Gal. iii. 13; 1 John, iii. 8; Heb 
i. 3 ; vi. 20. 

This genus apotelesmaticum is made very pro- 
minent in the "Form of Concord," on account 
of the controversy in the sixteenth century be- 
tween Osiander and Stancarus, theologians of 
Konigsberg. Osiander taught that Christ atoned 
for the sins of men only as God, and not as man. 
Stancarus, on the other hand, taught that the 
human nature only, and not the divine, was 
concerned in the mediatorial work. The other 
theologians decided justly that both natures 
were here concerned. These two theologians, 
indeed, expressed themselves inaptly, but ap- 
pear not to have been so unscriptural in their 
opinions as many supposed them to be. Osian- 
der only designed by his declarations to exhibit, 
in a clear light, the high worth of the merits of 
Christ; and Stancarus only wished to obviate 
the mistake that Christ endured sufferings and. 
death as God. As for the rest, vide Morus, p. 
146, last note. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT HAS BEEN 
EFFECTED BY IT. 



SECTION CV. 

SCRIPTURAL NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE 
WORKS OF CHRIST, AND THEIR SALUTARY EF- 
FECTS ; ALSO, THE NAMES OF CHRIST AS THE 
SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD. 

I. General Names of the Wo7-ks of Christ for the 
good of Men. 
(1) "Epyov is frequently used in the New Tes- 
tament in the discourses of Christ himself, John, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 373 



i*-. 34 ; xvii. 4. It signifies the business, works, 
which he had undertaken. In the passages 
cited, his business is called tpyov mov rta-fpoj, or 
fov rci^avtoi ; because it is considered as a 
commission given him by the Father. It is 
also called iv?o?sr t , mandatum, commission, John, 
x. 18 ; xii. 49. 

(2) Many ecclesiastical terms were afterwards 
adopted in addition to these scriptural terms. 
Among these is the word munus, which is very 
appropriate, as it means business, work; and 
thus answers to t'pyov. The word officium was 
used in the same sense, and became the most 
common name for the work of Christ in the 
Latin church, Tertullian says (con. Marc. iii. 
16), respecting Christ, " Officium propheta?, 
nuntiantis divinam voluntatem." Hilarius, of 
Poictiers, in the fourth century, says, " Officium 
Christi proprium cognitionem Dei afferre," and 
" Officium Christi pcenale." These terms were 
retained in the protestant church, and officium 
and officia were the most common terms with 
Melancthon, Chemnitz, and others. But be- 
cause, in Germany, munus and officium were 
commonly rendered by words which denoted 
offices, posts of honour, (Germ. Ami, Ehrenamt,) 
they were so rendered here, and in this way 
occasion was given to associate several incor- 
rect ideas with this subject. So they spoke of 
the mediatorial office of Christ, instead of his 
mediatorial work; and of the three offices of 
Christ, instead of his threefold work, or the 
three parts of his mediatorial work. On ac- 
count of this ambiguity of the words offixium 
and munus, Ernesti preferred to say, "De opere 
Christi salutari." 

II. General Description of the Objects of the Mission 
of Christ, and of the Benefits JiovAng to Men 
through him. 

(1) In some passages the object of his advent 
to the earth is stated in general terms to be to 
rescue men from their unhappy condition, and 
to transfer them into a more happy situation — 
e. g., John, iii. 16, "Those who believe in him 
shall not be miserable, (^ drtoWaa^ou,) but 
shall become happy, (^cc^v e^cw.)" Also, Heb. 
ix. 15, where arto?>.v?puoi$ means liberatio ab in- 
fortunio, and x%r t povoixia, possessio beatitatis. 
Cf. Luke, xix. 10; 1 Tim. i. 15. Christ is 
said to have come, 1 John, iii. 5, 8, aixaptlac 
axpsiv and "kvEiv 1'pya tov §ia{3o%ov, peccata. The 
word tfu&w which occurs frequently in these 
passages, like the Hebrew j?>rin, involves the 
two ideas of freeing from misery and translat- 
ing intca happy condition. The same is true 
of the word oiotr^la. 

(2) In other passages the benefits which 
Christ has bestowed, and his desert of the hu- 
man race, are comprised in a shorter descrip- 
tion, and only particular parts of his work are 



mentioned — e. g., John, i. 17, which treats of 
the great advantages which Christianity has 
over the Mosaic doctrine and institute, (voftoj.) 
Christianity bestows the greatest blessings, 
%dpi$ xal aXr^sia. — assurance of the most sincere 
love of God, or of his free, unmerited grace, and 
of his truth. John, xiv. 6, "I am the way, the 
truth, and the life" — i. e., I am he through 
whom you come to God, who qualifies you to 
enter the abodes of the blessed ; and this my 
promise is true ; you may safely confide in it; 
I am the author and giver of life — i. e., of hap- 
piness. Heb. ii. 14, " By his death he deprived 
the devil, the author of all injury and wretched- 
ness, of his power to harm ; he freed us from the 
fear of death, and procured us the pardon of our 
sins." The passage, 1 Cor. i. SO, should be 
cited in this connexion : " Through him God 
has bestowed upon us true wisdom — has esta- 
blished a dispensation which truly deserves the 
name of a wise dispensation, (in opposition to 
the pretended wisdom of men, ver. 21 ;) he is 
the cause of our forgiveness — God pardons us 
on his account; he sanctifies us through him, 
(after forgiveness has been bestowed ;) to him 
we owe deliverance from the power, dominion, 
and punishment of sin." 

III. Scriptural Titles which are given to Christ as 
the Saviour of the World. 

The names, Messiah, Christ, King, Lord, 
which denote the elevation and dignity of 
Christ, have also a reference to the benefits 
which he bestowed upon us, and to the works 
which he performed for the good of men. For 
he is Messiah, King, Lord, for the very purpose 
of delivering us from miser} T , and of bestowing 
blessings upon us. These titles have been con- 
sidered, s. 89, 98. Their doctrinal meaning, 
then, as applied to this subject, is Scor^p, (xocs- 
pov,) Saviour, Benefactor of men. The follow- 
ing titles imply more directly the idea of his 
being the Benefactor of our race. 

(1) 'Irjcsovs. This is indeed the name by 
which he is more properly distinguished as 
' man ; but at the same time it may have been 
I given to him as a significant name, denoting his 
I future works and destination, according to the 
custom in giving names, common in the East. 
Indeed, the New Testament expressly declares 
that he received this name by divine appoint- 
ment, on the command of the angel : Swtfst %aov 
avtov artb auap-riwv, Matt. i. 21 ; Luke, i. 31; 
ii. 21. This name was common among the 
Jews at the time of Christ, and is the name of 
the Jewish leader, Joshua, which is accordingly 
rendered 'Ijycyovj by the LXX., and Heb. iv. P 
The Hebrew name pwn or g«nrp is derived from 
pcfr, Hiph. >^" :, n, which answers to o<i^ni, (as 
oatiijpha does to % ;z l \) and signifies, according to 
Hebrew and Greek usage, not merely a deli- 
21 



S74 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



verer, but in general, a benefactor, one who be- 
stows blessings. 

(2) Sof»jp. This word agrees in signification 
with 'I^cyoxij, and answers to the old German 
word, Heiland, (Saviour.) For cru^p denotes 
one who has not only saved a person from ex- 
tremity and wretchedness, but translated him 
into a happy condition. Cicero says, (in Verr. 
ii. 63,) " Is est Soter, qui salutem dedit" and 
remarks that it is " ita magnum, ut latino uno 
verbo exprimi non possit. Vide Ernesti, CI. Cic. 
in h. v. In this sense the Greeks applied it to 
their gods — e. g., to Jupiter, (so also it is applied 
to God, Luke, i. 47 ;) also to their rulers — e. g., 
Antiochus, Ptolemy Soter. So Philo names the 
emperor. The LXX. give this name to Moses 
and other Jewish leaders. Christ now is called 
in the New Testament, by way of eminence, 
^cotrjp tov xog/xov, the Saviour of the world, the 
Benefactor of the human race, Luke, ii. 11 ; John 
iv. 42. So when the word tfw£W is spoken of 
Christ, it signifies to bless; and dcc^o/xsvoi, the 
blessed, is a name given to pious Christians, 2 
Cor. ii. 15 ; and Gcctvpla signifies all the bless- 
edness which Christians receive from Christ, not 
only in the life which is to come, but in that 
which now is, 1 Pet. i. 10, seq. 

(3) MsGbtnj. This word was used in various 
senses by the ancients. Among the Greeks it 
meant conciliator, (a negotiator, or peace-maker 
between contending parties,) sponsor, arbiter. 
When this term is applied to Christ in the New 
Testament, it is taken from Moses, and implies 
a comparison of Moses with Christ. Moses is 
called by Philo (de v. Mos.), and by Paul ; Gal. 
iii. 19, [jisGrftjs, in the sense of mediator, ambas- 
sador, negotiator {internuntius, interpretes), as 
mediator between God and the Israelites ; because 
he spoke and acted in the name of the Israelites 
with God, and in the name of God with the 
Israelites. The passage, Deut. v. 5, where 
Moses describes himself as standing dm fiiaov 
Kvptov xal %aov, affords the origin of this appel- 
lation. With this the works of Christ were com- 
pared ; he was called, 1 Timothy, ii. 5, psarfqs 
®eov xal av^purtov, partly inasmuch as he treats 
with God in the name of men, and does with 
God everything which is possible for our good ; 
and partly because he treats with men in the 
name of God, and, as his ambassador, founds a 
new institute, and assures to men the compla- 
cency and favour of God, In this respect he is 
called, Heb. viii. 6, (xsgit!^ xpe'lftovos 5ta^- 
xr-r ix. 14, xaovyjs 8ia^rjxr]^, the founder of a 
new and more excellent dispensation than the 
ancient Mosaic dispensation. Cf. xii. 24. 

(4) 'O Ttpo^ri-tTqc, noj, the prophet, an ancient 
Jewish appellation of the Messiah, since he was 
conceived to be the greatest of all the messen- 
gers and teachers sent from God. This term is 
derived principally fiorn the passage, Deut. 



xviii. 15, which is referred to Jesus by Peter, 
Acts, iii. 22, seq. ; and by Stephen, Acts, vii. 
37. Vide s. 91. 

(5) 'O a7t6<3i?o'hos. This appellation occurs 
Heb. v. 1, a7t6(ito'ko$ — trfi ofx.o'hoyias r^xu>v — i. e., 
the messenger, ambassador of God, whom we 
(Christians) profess. Christ frequently, espe* 
cially in John, applies to himself the phrase ov 
a7t£a-tet,tev 6 ©£oj, John, xvii. 

The various other titles which were given to 
Christ, from the particular benefits which he 
conferred upon men, including the figurative 
names, dp^xfpEvj, a/xvog, apri&os, ^-rpa, will be 
noticed in their proper places. 

SECTION CVI. 

WHAT IS CONSIDERED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS PRO- 
PERLY BELONGING TO THE WORK WHICH CHRIST 
PERFORMED FOR THE GOOD OF MEN; EXPLANA- 
TION OF THE WORD " REDEMPTION," AS USED IN 
THE BIBLE ; AND WHAT IS THE MOST CONVE- 
NIENT AND NATURAL ORDER AND CONNEXION 
FOR EXHIBITING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ENTIRE 
MERITS OF CHRIST. 

I. What belongs to, the Work of Christ, or to 
Redemption. 

(1) The declaration of his doctrine, and in- 
struction respecting it. To this many of the 
titles applied to him refer : as 6 itpofyrfir^, 6 ajtot- 
Tfo%os, (s. 105,) 8i8doxa%os, x. t. "k. Respecting 
the discharge of his office as teacher, vide s. 94. 
It needs only to be remarked here, that instruc- 
tion in this divine doctrine is by no means men- 
tioned in the New Testament as the only object 
of the advent of Christ ; still it is represented as 
a great object, and as an essential part of his work 
upon the earth, or of the work of redemption. 
So he himself represents it. In John, xvii. 3, 4, 
he expressly mentions instruction in the true 
religion ("that they should acknowledge thee 
as the true God") as belonging to the tpyoj/ 
which was given him by the Father to do; and 
in John, xviii. 37, he says, that he was born 
and had come into the world in order to propa- 
gate the true religion, (JxKr^ziav.') He every- 
where taught that he was lawgiver and king 
so far as he was a true, an infallible teacher; 
that he reigned over the minds of men, not by 
external power and constraint, (like the kings 
of the earth,) but by the internal power of the 
truth which he preached. Cf. John, iii. 34* 
xii. 49, 50. 

(2) The sufferings and d'.ath which he endured 
for the good of men. This, too, Christ himself 
always mentions as an essential part of this work 
— e. g., John, iii. 14, seq. In the allegory, 
John, vi. 51, where he compares himself with 
the manna, he means by the bread of heaven the 
doctrine respecting his person, and especially re- 
specting the sacrifice of his body for the good 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 375 



of men, (vrtep £q^s tov xog/aov ;) which he incul- 
cates as a doctrine of the first importance. In 
John, xii. 27, he says, "For this purpose (to 
die for the good of men, vide ver. 24) God had 
brought him into such distress, and therefore he 
would readily and cheerfully endure it." Cf. 
John, xiv. 31. The institution of the Lord's 
Supper was designated to commemorate "his 
blood shed for the remission of sins;" Matt, 
xxvi. 28. That Christ died for the good of all 
men is the universal doctrine of all the apostles ; 
Heb. ii. 9. Paul calls this suffering of Jesus 
vrcaxorj; Rom. v. 19, coll. Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 
8 ; because he endured it in obedience to the 
will of God. He contrasts it with the Tiapaxorj 
of Adam, and says that by it we have obtained 
forgiveness and the remission of sins. If, then, 
we would adhere to the declarations of the 
scriptures, we shall not separate this part from 
the other ; but consider them both, one as much 
as the other, as belonging to the work of Christ. 

Many indeed maintain that the annunciation 
and diffusion of his doctrine was the only object 
of the life of Christ upon earth, and that his 
death is to be considered merely as a martyr- 
dom, by which he gave an example and pattern 
of steadfastness and devotion to the will of God, 
and a confirmation of the truth of his doctrine. 
But, 

(a) The assertion that this was the only object 
of his life is inconsistent with the declarations 
of scripture. We do not find that the scriptures 
particularly mention his death as an example of 
steadfastness; at least, they do not dwell upon 
this view, or regard it as the principal point. 
Remission of sins and eternal life are mentioned 
by Christ himself as the principal object which 
he had in view, John, iii. 16; Matt. xxvi. 

(6) As to the other assertion, that his doctrine 
was proved and confirmed by his death, we find 
not a single passage among all that speak of his 
death and the object of it which give us to un- 
derstand that the truth and divinity of his reli- 
gion was proved and confirmed by this means, 
although they were so by his resurrection and 
ascension. The passage, Heb. ii. 10, cannot be 
appealed to in proof of this assertion ; for foa 
rca^rjxdti^v means, after sufferings and death had 
been endured, and refers to Christ. Nor can the 
passage, John, xvii. 19, be appealed to, " I have 
sanctified (according to some, sacrificed) myself, 
that they also might be sanctified by the truth." 
The meaning of this passage is : " I have entirely 
consecrated (as ver. 17) myself to this service, in 
order to give them an example which they should 
follow in the proclamation of the true religion; 
that they also may deny themselves, take up 
my cross, renounce all worldly prospects, and 
live solely for me and my cause." Thus we 
see that on this subject the opinions of Christ 
and of the first Christians were entirely differ- 



ent from those above mentioned ; and we ought 
not to ascribe to those times and writers the 
ideas which are now current among so many. 
But, in not considering the death of Christ as 
designed to confirm the truth of his doctrines, 
the scriptures are entirely right. And if they 
had so considered it, they would plainly have 
been wrong. It is strange that those who ad- 
vocate this point should have overlooked this. 
For, 

(c) The steadfast death of a martyr can never 
prove the truth of the doctrine for which he dies ; 
for almost all religions can point to their heroic 
martyrs. His own firm belief of the truth for 
which he died is all that can be concluded from 
the death of a martyr. The religion of Jesus, 
therefore, would have a very uncertain ground 
if it rested upon this fact, and depended foi 
proof upon this argument. Besides, although 
Jesus died with great firmness and" magnani- 
mity, it is still certain that he did not endure 
death with that tranquillity and joy which have 
been admired in so many martyrs of the Chris- 
tian and the other religions. Consider his 
agony in Gethsemane, Luke, xxii., and previ- 
ously, John, xii. 27. If this, then, were all, 
Jesus has been surpassed by many martyrs. 
Vide s. 95, II. 

(d) During the short continuance of his office 
as teacher, Jesus did not exhibit the whole com- 
pass of the doctrines of his religion, even to his 
apostles, because he was with them but a short 
time, and the truths to be taught were many, and 
the disciples were as yet incapable of receiving 
most of them ; John, xvi. 12. It was not till 
after his death that these doctrines, in all their 
extent, were exhibited, developed, and applied 
by the apostles, and were at the same time in- 
creased by the addition of many others about 
which Jesus had said nothing clearly. He de- 
signed to prepare the ground, and to begin to 
sow. but they were to enter into the full harvest; 
John, iv. If, then, as is frequently said, he de- 
signed to seal or confirm his doctrine by his 
death, he could only confirm so much of it as he 
himself had already taught, leaving us in uncer- 
tainty respecting the rest, and respecting its 
whole later development. 

(e) If the writers of the New Testament be- 
lieved that Jesus lived upon the earth merely for 
the purpose of teaching, it is hard to see why 
they should ascribe such distinguished excel- 
lences to his person ; and why the Deity should 
be united with him in a manner in which it never 
was with any other man, or any other created 
being. As a mere man, he might have been 
taught by God, and have preached a doctrine 
revealed to him by God, and have founded a 
new religion and religious institutions, as Moses 
and the prophets did, and afterwards the apos- 
tles themselves. He himself delivered only the 



376 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



smallest part of his doctrines ; nor did he widely 
disseminate even these. He taught only three 
years, in a few provinces, within the small cir- 
cuit of Judea and Galilee; and he saw but little 
fruit of his labours. The apostles, on the other 
hand, lived through a long course of years, added 
to the number of the doctrines of the Christian 
religion, and widened their scope, disseminated 
them through many countries, and saw the hap- 
piest results of their labours. In short, they did, 
as Christ himself predicted, greater things than 
he himself accomplished ; John, xiv. 12. Were 
Christ, then, a mere teacher, he must in many 
respects give place to his apostles, and rank as 
inferior to them. On this supposition, he would 
only have the preference of originating, founding, 
and giving the tone to his religion ; while, on 
the contrary, according to the representations of 
the apostles, and before them of John the Bap- 
tist, he had an infinite superiority over them, 
and over all the teachers who had preceded or 
would follow them. These had done and could 
do nothing which could bear any comparison 
with what he had done for the human race; for 
to him alone are men indebted for their entire 
happiness here and hereafter. Even John the 
Baptist, whom Christ described as the greatest 
of all prophets, esteemed himself unworthy to 
offer him the most, menial service; John, i. and 
iii. 28 — -36. " Whosoever believes in him has 
eternal life." Where was this ever said of a 
prophet or apostle ] Where is it said that who- 
ever believes on Moses or Paul has eternal life ] 
The writers of the New Testament, then, must 
have supposed, if they do not speak and judge 
quite inconsistently, that the design of God, in 
the mission and death of Christ, extended to 
something more than mere instruction and ex- 
ample. They must have believed that he was 
a far more exalted person than any human 
teacher who preceded or would follow him. 

(/) Where is it said, respecting James, Ste- 
phen, or any other martyr, that he died for men? 
But this would have been said of them if this 
language had meant nothing more than giving 
an example and furnishing confirmation to a 
doctrine. Paul himself protests against this 
idea, as derogatory to Christ, and abhorrent to 
the feelings of Christians, 1 Cor. i. 13. 

II. Explanation of the Word a-noXvrpcdaig Or Xirpuais, 

(Redemption,) and a development of the idea 

contained in it. 

(1) The primary and literal signification of 
Toifpou is, to redeem by the payment of a ransom 
of money or something else. For "kvtpov is pre- 
iium redemplionis, and is used by the LXX. to 
translate the Hebrew nsj, Exodus, xxx. 12, 
seq. Thus it is used, e. g., when speaking of 
redemption from captivity or slavery, which is 
effected by the payment of a ransom, or when 



speaking of a person's property which is in the 
hands of another, and which he then redeems. 
In this sense Jon'pdw frequently corresponds to 
the Hebrew words \xj and m~, and Tun-pcoccj to 
the substantives derived from them — e. g., Lev. 
xxv. 25, 30, 48, 49. But, 

(2) Avtpovv and Tuufpcorjij frequently convey 
the general idea of any rescue and deliverance 
from an unhappy situation, as from slavery ,• or 
deliverance from any other, even moral evil, 
without either the literal payment of a ransom, 
or anything like it; precisely like rrf3 and -xj. 
Slavery and captivity so often befel the Hebrews 
that they were in the habit of comparing every 
species of wretchedness with this severe cala- 
mity. Captivity stood with them for great ca- 
lamity ; as Job, xlii. 10, God freed Job from 
captivity when he restored him to health and 
prosperity. Captured people, Ps. liii. 7, signi- 
fies unhappy people. Every deliverance from 
misfortune, even where no ransom, in the literal 
sense, was paid, was with them ^pwcftj ; the 
deliverer, Xvtp^tr^; the means of deliverance, 
hvtpov, as Moms properly translates it. It is 
not said merely of deliverance from bodily evil, 
but is transferred to spiritual evil. According- 
ly, the LXX. frequently translate m*j and S.-u by 
<yw£W, Job, xxxiii. 28 ; and by f>vsa§w,, Is. 1. 2; 
which are then synonymous with kvtpovv. 

(3) The writers of the New Testament follow 
this Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek usage, and em- 
ploy these words to denote any preservation and 
deliverance, even in cases where no ransom, in 
the proper sense, is paid — e. g., r t u£pa aatoXvtpui- 
tffcoj, Eph. iv. 30; iyyl^zi, aTtoXv-rptofftj, Luke, 
xxi. 28; and drtoXrrptoffcj tov 6u> t uaros, Rom. 
viii. 23; and Moses is called, Acts, vii. 35, the 
%vtpu,t-qi; of the Israelites, although he paid no 
ransom for them. In this sense is drfoTukptocrcj 
applied by Jews and Christians to the Messiah, 
and denotes, when spoken of hirn, the rescue and 
deliverance which he has procured for us. 

In all the variety of their opinions respecting 
the Messiah and his designs, the Jews differed 
also in opinion respecting this deliverance which 
they were expecting from him. 

(a) Many Jews, who supposed the Messiah 
would be a temporal ruler, placed this Tivrpcotnj 
"kaov, principally, at least, in a temporal deliver- 
ance of their nation from its enemies and op- 
pressors. Cf. %vtpovv 'lapar'K spoken of the 
Messiah, Luke, xxiv. 21 ; which is expressed 
by aTioxaferftdvai fiaQCkzlaiv to 'Icrpajjx, Acts, i. 6. 

(b) But those of the Jews who were better 
instructed understood this arto^vtpcoa^ which 
was ascribed to the Messiah in a spiritual and 
moral sense only. In this sense Christ himsfif 
and his apostles always understood it. Now it 
was common to conceive of Sin as having a 
power and dominion which it exercised over 
sinners, (vide s. 85, I.,) and to conceive of the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 377 



author of sin (the deceiver of our first parents) 
in the same way ; and so of Death, (the conse- 
quence and punishment of sin,) which is de- 
scribed as a tyrant, who has men in his power. 
One who perishes, or becomes miserable, is his 
captive and slave. But, according- to the repre- 
sentations of the New Testament, Christ frees us 
(a) from the power and dominion of sin by means 
of instruction and counsel received by us in faith . 
*Atoj£-£ia £tei&sp»ff£t -fytaj — Ttoj i^aj s%£v$sp6c>£i>, 
x. t. %., John, viii. 32 — 36. He accomplishes 
this deliverance by means of his doctrine and 
example. But (j3) he frees us also from the pu- 
nishment of sin, or procures us forgiveness, by 
his death, (atonement.) We cannot experience 
the good resulting from the first part of this 
redemption, and have no true capacity for it, 
before we are made sure of the second. 

This twofold deliverance is expressed by va- 
rious phrases, which sometimes denote the one 
kind, sometimes the other, and sometimes the 
two together. Among these phrases are the fol- 
lowing : — orgj^ftv 6.7tb auap-tiuv, Matthew, i. 21 ; 
zd^ap l^scv drib auaptlas, John, i. 7, 9, &c. So 
also 7»vtp6u> and %v-tpu>at,s are used sometimes to 
express the one kind of deliverance or the other, 
and sometimes both together, Heb. ix. 12; 1 
Pet. i. 18 ; Rom. iii. 24. W T hat is expressed 
by the phrase "hvtpovv arid oSwetaj, Titus, ii. 14, 
is expressed by ^at,pstv, Gal. i. 4; and Christ 
himself says he gave his life "kvtpov avti rto%- 
%u>v — i. e., he died for the delivery and rescue 
of men, Matt. xx. 28. In the same way, the 
other words of buying and redeeming are used 
mostly for every kind of rescue and deliverance, 
and in this sense are transferred to Christ ; as, 
ayopd^eiv, i^ayopd^scv, 1 Cor. vii. 23. "The 
Lord that bought them," 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Gal. iii. 
13; Rev. v. 9.' 

III. The Order and Connexion in which the parti- 
cular topics belonging to the Article respecting the 
Merits of Christ may be most conveniently and 
naturally treated. 

It is most natural here to have respect to the 
twofold object of the mission of Christ; (a) to 
free men from the unhappy condition into which 
they are brought by sin, "that they may not 
perish," John, iii. 16; and (5) to procure for 
them true happiness in the present and the fu- 
ture world, "that they should have eternal 
life," John, ubi supra. Hence appears the pro- 
priety, in the systematic treatment of theology, 
of separating the doctrine respecting the work 
(opus) of Christ, from the doctrine respecting 
the good, or the benefits themselves, which Christ 
has procured for us by his work, (beneficia 
Christi.) The first part exhibits the means 
which God employs to recover the human race 
, through Christ; the second part, the results of 
what Christ did. This same distinction is made 
48 



in the holy scriptures in other places besides 
John, iii. ; as Rom. v. 9, 10, $dva-to$ is the opus 
Christi ; xaifaTJKay "rj is the result, or the blessing 
which Christ bestows; 2 Tim. i. 10, "through 
the gospel (opus Christi) he has brought life and 
immortality to light, (beneficia.)" According to 
the example of the Bible, therefore, the whole 
subject may be arranged in the following man- 
ner — viz., 

I. Of the work of Christ, or the redemption 
which he has effected, — his mediatorial work, 
(redemptio.) This comprises, 

(1) Deliverance or redemption from the pu- 
nishment of sin, which is effected by his death 
or his blood, together with the doctrine of the 
justification or forgiveness of men, the fruit of 
this redemption. S. 108 — 115, incl. 

(2) Deliverance from the power and dominion 
of sin, which is effected, through divine assist- 
ance, by the instruction which Christ gives by 
his doctrine and example. S. 116, 117. 

Each of these kinds of deliverance belongs 
equally to this artoJukpcofftj, or redemption. Only 
we must have the forgiveness of our past sins, 
and assurance of the same, before we can avail 
ourselves of what is contained in the second 
part. Hence we have adopted this order. And 
so the Bible teaches ; we are first pardoned, 
then sanctified. The first is effected by the death 
of Christ, the second, with divine assistance, by 
the instructions of Christ, when received and 
obeyed in faith. 

II. On the result of all these works under- 
taken for the good of men, or the blessedness to 
which men attain in this life and the life to 
come, in consequence of these works, (benefi- 
cia Christi.) S. 118—120, incl. 

But before we enter upon this plan, we must 
say a few words respecting the method com- 
monly pursued, especially in former times, in 
discussing the doctrine of the mediatorial work 
of Christ; s. 107. 

SECTION CVII. 

OF THE METHOD FORMERLY ADOPTED OF CONSI- 
DERING THE WORK OF CHRIST, AS CONSISTING 
OF THE PROPHETIC, PRIESTLY, AND KINGLY 
OFFICES. 

It has been for a long time the custom in the 
protestant, and especially in the Lutheran 
church, to consider the mediatorial work of 
Christ as consisting of three offices, (munera, 
officia, Germ. JEmtem) — viz., the prophetic, 
priestly, and kingly. This method was not 
universal among the Lutheran theologians, 
though it was the most general from the se- 
venteenth century down to the time of Ernesti. 
In 1768 — 69 he wrote two Programma, "De 
officio Christi triplici," which are found in his 
"Opusc. Theolog.," p. 411, seq., and in which 
2i2 



378 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



he objects to this method, for many reasons. 
Most of his reasons (for they are not all of 
equal validity) have so much weight, that 
Zacharia, Doderlein, and many other protest- 
ant theologians since his time, have pursued an 
entirely different method. Seiler, Less, in his 
"Prakt. Dogmat." and others, adhered to the 
old method, and endeavoured to defend it. Also 
Dresde, whose " Obss. in tripartitam divisionem 
muneris mediatorii;" Vitel. 1778, 4 to ; contain 
many excellent historical remarks. We shall 
speak first of the origin and history of this me- 
thod, and then of the reasons why it does not 
appear to be proper in the systematic treatment 
of theology. 

I. Origin and History of this Division. 

The title rwD, Xpwr'dj, Unctus, gave rise to 
this division. In its common use, it properly 
signifies a king. But it was considered accord- 
ing to its etymology, and thus new significa- 
tions were formed. The question was, " Who, 
in the Old Testament, was anointed, or conse- 
crated to office, by unction?" This was found 
to have been the custom most frequently with 
respect to kings and priests. Accordingly, 
Ambrosius, Ruffinus, and other ecclesiastical 
fathers, declared that n>£ ; r> denoted the kingly 
and priestly office. But it was found that pro- 
phets also were sometimes anointed. And so 
Clement of Alexandria and others declared that 
Christ was called rwn because he was a pro- 
phet. Vide Dresde, s. 5. Now when they saw 
that Christ was actually called king, priest, and 
prophet in the scriptures, they put these two 
things together, and declared that the whole 
mediatorial work of Jesus consisted in these 
three kinds of works. Eusebius, in the fourth 
century, in his Church History, and also in his 
"Demonstratio Evangelica," (iv. 15,) is the 
first who appears to have distinctly connected 
these three parts, and to have considered them 
as belonging to the mediatorial work. 

This division, then, is not so modern as Er- 
nesti appears to suppose. Indeed, ^t may have 
been originally derived by the Christians from 
the Jews. For the Rabbins and Cabalists as- 
cribe to the Messiah a threefold dignity (crown) 
— viz., the crown of the law, of the priesthood, 
and of the kingdom. Vide Schoettgen, in his 
work on the Messiah, s. 107, 298. At least both 
of them formed the division in the same way. 
But among Christians it was never the general 
rule of faith, but only employed as a figurative 
mode of representing the doctrine. Anciently it 
was most common in the Greek church. Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret, and others, shew traces of it. 
It was therefore seen in the Confession of Faith 
of the modern Greek church in the seventeenth 
century, and it is still common in the Russian 
church. Anciently in the Latin church it was 



sometimes, though seldom used. But the school- 
men never used it in their acroamatical instruc- 
tions ; for which reason the theologians of the 
Romish church in after times used it but seldom, 
although Bellarmin and many others do not dis- 
card it. For the same reason, Luther and Me- 
lancthon, and other early Lutheran theologians 
who separated from the Romish church, do not 
make use of this method in treating of the doctrine 
of the mediatorial work of Christ. But after the 
seventeenth century it was gradually introduced 
into the systems. It appears to have been fir»t 
introduced by Job. Gerhard, in his "LociTheo- 
logici." At least it is not found in Chemnitz. 
It was afterwards employed in popular religious 
instruction, and was admitted by Spener into his 
Catechism ; until at last it became universal to 
treat of the doctrine respecting the mediatorial 
work of Christ according to this division and 
under these heads. In the reformed church it 
was adopted by Calvin, who was followed by 
many others. It is also adopted by many Ar- 
minian and Socinian writers. 

II. A Critical Judgment respecting this Method. 

Morus, indeed, acknowledges that nothing 
depends upon exhibiting the doctrine in this 
particular form, and that the truths themselves 
may be expressed in other words, and with- 
out this figurative phraseology. At the same 
time he undertakes to defend it, though not in 
a very satisfactory manner. The following rea- 
sons seem to render it unadvisable for theolo- 
gians to make use of this form in the scientific 
treatment of this doctrine. 

(1) It appears from No. I. that this manner 
of presenting the subject arose entirely from an 
etymological explanation of the word rrtrp, and. 
from an allegorical sense of this title founded 
upon its etymology. For, according to the true 
use of the word in the Bible, Messiah signifies 
only king. Many were anointed, but king* 
were called, by way of eminence, the anointed. 

(2) All these words, when applied to Christ, 
are figurative. Such figurative expressions are, 
indeed, very good and instructive in themselves, 
and must be suitably explained in the acroama 
tical and popular treatment of theology. But it is 
more convenient to express the ideas themselves 
in the first instance by literal language, and not 
to make figurative expressions, although they 
may be scriptural, the ground of our divisions. 
And so indeed we proceed with respect to the 
other figurative terms applied to Christ in the 
Bible, as lamb, physician, shepherd, door, vine. 
And why should we proceed differently here ? 
Thus we can consider Christ as king, and as 
a divinely authorized teacher (prophet), in both 
his states; and especially as making atonement 
(High Priest) ; and then we can explain the 
figurative terms, and shew the meaning of the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 37?, 



words sacrifice, intercede, and bless, when spoken 
of Christ. 

(3) When theologians attempt to determine 
definitely which of the works of Christ are de- 
noted by each of these titles, they themselves 
differ widely from one another; because these 
titles are figurative, and so admit of various sig- 
nifications, according as they are understood in 
a more limited or a wider sense. On this ac- 
count, it is inconvenient to make this division 
the basis of our treatment of this subject. It 
may easily occasion confusion of ideas. Some 
(No. I.) admit only two offices, the royal and 
priestly, and comprise the prophetic office in the 
priestly, because the priests were employed in 
teaching. But even those who admit three of- 
fices are not united. The opinion which Baier 
formerly held, and which Seiler follows, is one 
of the most current in the Lutheran church — 
viz., the prophetic office comprehends the works 
of Christ as divine teacher, in order to free men 
from ignorance and to point out to them the way 
to happiness (ablatio amissae salutis) ; the priest- 
ly office comprehends the whole work of atone- 
ment, or deliverance from guilt and the punish- 
ment of sin (acquisitio amissae salutis) ; the 
kingly office comprehends the labours of Christ 
for the good of his followers and of his church, 
and for the more general diffusion of truth over 
the earth, (collatio amissae salutis.) But others 
again define and divide differently. 

(4) The advocates of this division appeal to 
the Bible, where these figurative titles, king, 
prophet, high priest, frequently occur in appli- 
cation to Christ. But the sacred writers do not 
mean to designate by these titles the very works 
of Christ, as Redeemer, which theologians un- 
derstand by them. The sacred writers mean 
frequently to describe by these titles the whole 
object of the mission of Christ and his whole 
work. These titles were derived from the an- 
cient Jewish constitution, and were used by the 
apostles, for the most part, in their instructions 
to Jews and converts from Judaism, to whom 
the sense concealed under these figures was at 
once intelligible. At first the Jewish institute 
was administered by prophets and priests only, 
and if this state of things had continued, and 
the Israelites had never been governed by kings, 
Christ would not have received the name of 
king, and would not have been compared to a 
king. But since the royal dignity was the 
highest among the Israelites, the dignity of 
Christ was compared with it, and so he was 
called a king. 

The following remarks may shew the idea 
which is attached to these names in the scrip- 
tures, and the manner in which they are there 
used. 

(a) Prophet. This name was given to Christ 
not merely because he was a teacher, but also 



because he was a messenger or ambassador of 
God, according to the original signification of 
the word. He performed all his works, suffer- 
ing and dying, as well as teaching, as pro- 
phet — i. e., as the messenger of God. He is 
called a prophet especially in comparison with 
Moses, according to the text, Deut. xviii. 15. 
coll. Acts, iii. 22. Vide s. 91, I. But Moses, 
besides being a teacher and the founder of the 
Jewish religion, performed also the works of a 
ruler and priest, and did not transfer, till after- 
wards, one part of his duties, the priesthood, to 
Aaron. Moses, therefore, enacted laws, instruct- 
ed, ruled, sacrificed — all as prophet — i. e., as 
commissioned by God. 

(li) King. Here the case is the same as 
above. This name is given to Christ, not merely 
because he rules, guides, and protects his fol- 
lowers and church, but also because he is a 
teacher of the truth; as he himself declares, 
John, xviii. 37, that his kingdom consists in 
announcing, promoting, and diffusing the truth. 
Vide s. 10G, I. 1. Now according to the com- 
mon explanation, and the minute distinction 
which is here introduced, this would intrude 
upon the prophetic office. 

(c) Priest. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
from the fifth chapter and onward, Christ is 
often compared with priests, and especially with 
the Jewish high priest. But this comparison is 
derived from the text, Ps. ex. 4, which Christ 
refers to himself, and to which Paul appeals in 
the abovenamed epistle. The reason why such 
frequent use was made of this comparison in this 
epistle is, that it was written principally to 
converted Jews, who, however, were inclined to 
apostatize from Christianity, and who looked 
upon the origin of the Mosaic religion and the 
whole Jewish ritual as far more elevated, splen- 
did, and magnificent, than the Christian. In 
comparison with this, the origin and rites of 
Christianity appeared poor and insignificant. 
On this account, Paul compares Christ, in the 
first place, with Moses ; and then, from the fifth 
chapter and onward, with the Israelitish priests. 
He shews his resemblance to them, and at the 
same time, his great superiority over them. 
These figures and comparisons are not, there- 
fore, so intelligible to Christians, who are unac- 
quainted with the Levitical ritual and priesthood. 
To such, then, all this must be explained before 
they can properly understand these comparisons. 
Is it not, therefore, more suitable and judicious, 
first to exhibit the truth itself in plain and literal 
language, as Christ and the apostles so frequent- 
ly do on this subject; and then, to shew by 
what figures and comparisons this truth is re- 
presented in the scriptures, and to explain the 
meaning of these figures and comparisons 1 
We do not mean to imply that these figurative 
terms are in themselves objectionable, and 



380 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



should not be used in the more popular Chris- 
tian instruction. We only mean, that in the 
first place the truth should be taught without 
figures ; that then the figurative terms contained 
in the Bible should be explained ; and that after- 
wards literal and figurative language should be 
used alternately. And for this we have the ex- 
ample of the scriptures themselves. These figu- 
rative terms are by no means in themselves ob- 
jectionable ; for, according to the principles of 
the human mind, they exert a more powerful 
influence, illustrate truth more clearly, and im- 
press it more deeply upon the heart, than can be 
done by literal terms. Only they must be pro- 
perly explained. 

[The ancient method of considering the work 
of Christ under the form of a threefold office has 
been revived of late, and is adopted in the sys- 
tems of De Wette, Schleiermacher, and Tho- 
luck Tr.] 

We now enter upon the plan marked out at 
the close of s. 106. 



PART I. OF CHAPTER IV. 

ON REDEMPTION FROM THE PUNISHMENT OF 
SIN; OR, ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, 
AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF MEN BEFORE GOD 
—THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 

S. 108—115. 

SECTION CVIII. 

OF THE VARIOUS OPINIONS RESPECTING THE FOR- 
GIVENESS OF SIN BY GOD, AND THE CONDITIONS 
ON WHICH FORGIVENESS MAY BE GRANTED; AND 
AN APPLICATION OF THIS TO THE SCRIPTURAL 
DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. 

I. The "Forgiveness of Sin ," Various Opinions re- 
specting it, especially in regard to the Conditions 
of it. 

It is the uniform doctrine of all religions, that 
transgression of the divine law incurs inevitable 
punishment; but that no sins are altogether ir- 
remissible; that, on the contrary, God is in- 
clined to remit the punishment of sin, on certain 
conditions. For the object of religion is not 
only to point out to men their destination, but 
also to impart to them peace and composure of 
mind with regard to their destiny here and be- 
yond the grave. The opinions of men respect- 
ing the conditions on which the pardon of sin 
depends, may be divided into several classes. 
Some have united many of these conditions to- 
gether, as requisite to pardon; others have de- 
pended wholly on some particular one. 

(1) Sacrifice, and other religious rites and ce- 
remonies. 



(a) We observe that sacrifice is universal 
among all nations as soon as they rise above 
the first brutal condition. The Bible places it 
in the very first period of the world ; Gen. iv , 
viii. 20, 21. Many ancient and modern philo- 
sophers have greatly wondered how an idea in 
itself, as it seemed to them, so unworthy of God, 
could have occurred to men, or could have pre- 
vailed so universally among them. But there 
is a feeling lying deep in our nature which com- 
pels men to look around for some means of con- 
ciliating the favour of the Deity, and of averting 
the deserved punishment of sin. Vide infra, 
No. II. , and s. 88, I. 2. Why sacrifice was the 
means selected for this purpose, and why ac- 
cordingly it was sanctioned by divine appoint- 
ment among the Israelites and their ancestors, 
may appear from the following considerations. 

Men conceived of the Deity as corporeal and 
like themselves. Vide s. 19. Hence arose the 
idea of sacrifice. They hoped to conciliate the 
favour of God by the same means by which 
they endeavoured to gain the favour of men, 
supposing that what was pleasing to men would 
be so to God. The thought that internal good- 
ness and integrity of heart are alone pleasing to 
God, however plain this may appear to us, was 
entirely beyond the comprehension of rude and 
uncultivated man. But even allowing him to 
have some idea of this, he would still feel, as 
we must, that his holiness was very imperfect, 
and afforded a very doubtful pretension to the 
approbation of God. Besides, he would be dis- 
quieted by the fear that his past transgressions 
might not be cancelled, or be undone, by any 
succeeding holiness, and that punishment there- 
fore was still to be apprehended. He accord- 
ingly brought gifts and presents to his gods, to 
render himself acceptable to them. And so, in 
the ancient languages, the words which mean 
gifts, presents, also signify sacrifice. It was 
supposed in the earliest times that the gods 
were personally, though invisibly, present at the 
offering of these gifts, and when the offerings 
consisted of food, as was commonly the case, 
that they themselves partook, and enjoyed the 
sweet savour, (the sweet smell of the flesh of the 
offerings, xviaaa, Horn. II. iv. 49 ; xxiv. 68, 
seq.) Hence offerings were called the food and 
drink of the gods. Homer describes Jupiter 
and the rest of the gods as going from Olympus 
to a festal sacrifice which the Ethiopians pre- 
sented to him, and which lasted twelve days; 
II. i. 423, seq.; xxiii. 20fi, 207. It was the 
object of these gifts to express gratitude to the 
gods for blessings received, to obtain future 
benefits, and to avert the evils which they were 
supposed to ordain or to inflict in anger. 

The opinion of Ernesti, Doederlien, and 
many others, that sacrifices were originally only 
thank-offerings, and that the expiatory sacrifice 



STATE INTO WHICH MAX IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 



3=1 



was first introduced by Moses, is without proof. I 
The three kinds of sacrifice above named are 
found to exist together in all nations. Even the 
sacrifices of Abel and Xoah, Gen. iv. and viii., 
were designed to obtain good from God, and 
to avert evil, (the anger of God.) Homer 
gives, II. ix. 495, the great principle on which j 
all nations who have sacrificed have uniform- 
ly proceeded, "that meat and. drink offerings 
conciliate the gods with men when they err 
and sin." Even men were sacrificed to the 
gods when it was thought that the common 
flesh of beasts was insufficient to appease their 
anger, or to avert their displeasure. This was 
the case principally in the ages of the greatest 
rudeness and barbarity, when men imagined \ 
their gods to be as wild, revengeful, and blood- 
thirsty as themselves. But such sacrifices were 
resorted to even by the cultivated Greeks and 
Romans, in case of plague or any great calami- 
ty; and, notwithstanding the strictness with 
which they were forbidden by the laws of 
Moses, they were frequently practised even by 
the Jews. 

Respecting the origin of sacrifices, vide 
Sykes, Tom Ursprunge der Opfer, with Notes 
bv Semler; Halle, 1778, 8vo; and Wolf, Tom 
Ursprunge der Opfer, in his Vermischten 
Schriften. 

(b) As some of these nations became gradu- 
ally more civilized, many among them perceived 
that such a use of sacrifices was inconsistent 
with just ideas respecting God and his attri- 
butes, and that men could never obtain from the 
Deity by sacrifices even those things which they 
hoped to obtain by them. The use of them, 
however, could not be done away immediately 
by legislators and the institutors of religion, be- 
cause nothing could be substituted for them; 
they were thus, of necessity, continued as a part 
of the external worship of God. All that the 
more enlightened could do was to prevent thern 
from becoming injurious, and, if possible, ren- 
der them promotive of higher objects. To the 
ancient usage they must affix nobler ends, and 
employ sacrifices as sensible representations for 
teaching virtue, and improving the moral con- 
dition of the people. Such attempts were made 
in many cultivated nations. The ancient forms 
were preserved, while a more elevated and bet- 
ter sense was affixed to them. But the results 
of this course were not equally happy in every 
case. The ordinances which Moses was re- 
quired to make by divine commandment are 
distinguished in this respect above all that we 
find among the ancient heathen nations. Moses 
was fully convinced that offerings in themselves 
could never secure the actual forgiveness of sin 
from God. He did not therefore ordain them 
for this purpose. He proceeded on the princi- 
ple which Paul declares, Heb. x. 1. All the 



prophets who succeeded Moses held the same 
views, Ps. 1. 8 ; li. ; Is. i. 11 ; Jer. vi. 20 ; Amos, 
v. -2-2. -ice. But it was necessary that sacrifices 
should be preserved ; otherwise, that grross and 
uncultivated people would soon have deserted 
the worship of God. Moses therefore ordained 
sacrifices, as Paul justly says, Heb. ix. 13, for 
external purification simply. For this reason 
no sacrifices were appointed by God in the Mo- 
saic institute for such offences as murder, adul- 
tery, inc. ; not because such offences could not 
be forgiven by God, but because the civil wel- 
fare required that the punishment of them should 
not be remitted. For it was the object of God 
in appointing these sacrifices, 

(a) That they should release from the tail 
punishment of certain crimes. The commission 
of a crime rendered one unworthy of the com- 
munity of the holy people, and excluded him 
from it. The offering of sacrifice was the means 
by which he was externally readmitted to the 
Jewish community, and rendered externally 
pure; although he did not, on this account, ob- 
tain the pardon of his sin from God. It was 
designed that all who offered sacrifice should, 
by this act, both make a public confession of 
their sins, and at the same time see before them, 
in the sacrifice, the punishment which they had 
deserved, and to which they acknowledged 
themselves exposed. Hence sins were said to 
be laid upon the victim, and borne away by it 
when it was sacrificed. This transaction mani 
festlyhad its ground in the idea of substitution. 
" What thou deservedst to suffer, (death, pu- 
nishment,) this beast now suffers." Therefore 
the design of the sacrificial code of Moses was 
not to provide atonement for sins, but to repre 
sent sin as great and deserving of punishment ; 
in a word, "to lead to the knowledge of sin ;" 
Gal. iii. 19. 

(3) Another end of the sacrifices appointed 
by Moses was, as we are taught in the New 
Testament, to point the Israelites to the future, 
and to prefigure by types the greater divine pro- 
vision for the recovery of the human Tace. and 
to excite in the Israelites a feeling of their need 
of such a provision. Vide Gal. iii. and iv., also 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. On this subject, 
cf. s. 90, III. 9. 

Old and cultivated nations, like the present 
nations of Europe, now for a long time unaccus- 
tomed to sacrifices, would not be so favourably 
affected by seeing death inflicted as a pa 
rnent upon a victim, as by having the truth re- 
presented by this rite stated simply and impres- 
sively. But a gross people, still in the infane) 
of its improvement, would be more moved ar.d 
influenced by such a transaction. They have 
more sympathy with beasts than we hav- 
is shewn by the great influence of the fables of 
.Esop. And hence many heathen nations b 



3S2 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to neglect, and sometimes even to despise sa- 
crifices, as they gradually advanced in cultiva- 
tion. The case was the same with the Jews, 
and especially with the more cultivated Grecian 
Jews. But at the time of Christ there were still 
some Jews zealously devoted to the service of 
the altar, who committed the frequent and very 
general mistake, that God would forgive their 
sins on account of their sacrifices, notwithstand- 
ing the decided testimony which their ancient 
prophets had borne against this opinion. Paul, 
therefore, argues against it in some of his epis- 
tles. 

Note. — Many suppose that sacrifices were ap- 
pointed in the very earliest times by an express 
command from God himself. This supposition 
is rendered probable by the consideration that 
the Bible always regards sacrifices as rites well- 
pleasing in the sight of God. They are repre- 
sented as acceptable to him, and approved by 
him from the time of the flood, and even before ; 
Gen. iv. and viii. If sacrifices were actually 
commanded by God, we must suppose that God 
instructed the first race of men on this subject, 
after the manner above described ; but that his 
instructions were gradually forgotten and passed 
out of mind. The fact, however, of the original 
divine appointment of sacrifices is not clear from 
the Mosaic records. And as the results of the 
investigation are the same, whether the suppo- 
sition be true or false, we have had no reference 
to it in the previous remarks upon sacrifices. 

(2) Self-inflicted penances, and arbitrary suf- 
ferings which the sinner lays upon himself, 
in order to obtain from God the remission of 
punishment. 

This is a foolish error. We should think a 
human legislator very irrational who should 
permit the criminal to select a punishment at 
pleasure, in place of the one threatened in the 
law. This error, however, is very widely 
spread, especially among the Indians, and na- 
tions who inhabit southern climates, whose re- 
ligious require of them self-inflictions which 
are incredibly severe. The) 7, frequently go so 
far as to believe that an innocent man may un- 
dertake such sufferings for others ; and thus ob- 
tain for them forgiveness from God. This error 
is founded upon the mistaken opinion that God, 
like man, will be touched with compassion at 
the sight of these self-inflicted sufferings, and 
thus be inclined to remit those which are due. 
Fasting was also regarded in the light of a self- 
lnfliction, by which the forgiveness of sin might 
be procured. The great mass even of the Jews 
practised all these penances, with the grossest 
conceptions of their nature and efficacy. Vide 
1 Kings, xviii. 28. The prophets, therefore, 
frequently reprove them for this erroneous opi- 
nion, and teach them the truth ; Is. 1 viii. seq. 
Cultivated nations frequently entertain the s?.me 



false religious views, which are extremely inju- 
rious to morality. Even Christians are not en- 
tirely freed from them, after all that the New 
Testament contains to the contrary. 

(3) Good works, so called, on condition and 
account of which God is supposed to remit sin. 

It was supposed (a) that one who had re- 
formed might atone and make satisfaction for 
his past sins by some works of distinguished 
virtue ; or (b) that even one who had not re- 
formed entirely, but was still addicted to certain 
sins, might be pardoned by God for these sins, 
on account of some great, difficult, and useful 
labours which he might perform — suppositions, 
to be sure, both false and unphilosophical ! 
They have their ground, however, in the fact 
that good works are sometimes the means and 
motives with men, in bestowing pardon. An 
injured man sometimes forgives the offender on 
account of some favour which he may have re- 
ceived from him. A government sometimes 
forgives one offence in a person, who in other 
respects has deserved well of the rulers as in- 
dividuals, or of the state; on account, there- 
fore, of their own interest, which he has pro- 
moted. This circumstance, that in these cases 
men forgive offences on account of their own ad- 
vantage, which has been promoted by important 
services, is overlooked when they are compared 
with the conduct of God. We are not able to 
confer any good or benefit upon God by our 
best works. By these works we serve and be- 
nefit only ourselves, and we cannot demand or 
deserve a reward from God for actions for the 
very performance of which we are indebted to 
him, Luke, xvii. 10. It would be as foolish for 
us to require recompence from God for these 
services as for one who has been rescued from 
danger to demand reward from his deliverer in- 
stead of giving him his thanks, or for a patient 
to demand reward from his physician instead 
of paying him his fee, on the ground that by fol- 
lowing his directions he had escaped from dan- 
ger or sickness. 

This opinion has taken such deep root in the 
minds of men of all classes, and has spread so 
widely, that it cannot be entirely eradicated 
even from the minds of Christians. It prevail- 
ed among the ancient heathen, and especially 
among the Jews. The latter held the foolish 
opinion (which has been revived in another form 
among Christians) that the worth and meiits 
of their pious ancestors, particularly of Abra- 
ham, would be imputed to them, and that thus, 
through their substituted righteousness, they 
themselves might be freed from the strict observ- 
ance of the law. Against this mistake, John the 
Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, zealously la- 
boured. Vide Matt. iii. 9 ; Rom. iii. 5. The Jews 
believed that God was bound injustice to for- 
give and save them, on account of the promise 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 



383 



which he had made to Abraham. Vide Rom. 
ix. — xi., coll. s. 125. 

(4) Repentance and reformation. 

This condition of forgiveness has always 
appeared the best and most rational to the more 
improved and reflecting part of mankind, to 
whom the former conditions must have appeared 
unsatisfactory. Even the Old and New Testa- 
ments are full of passages which assure us that 
God forgives sins after deep repentance, and 
the moral reformation consequent upon it; Ps. 
xxxii. 3 — 5; li. 8, 12, 17; Luke, xviii. 13, seq. 
The writings of the Grecian and Roman philo- 
sophers also are fall of passages which mention 
this as the only acceptable condition. Seneca 
says, " Quern poenitet peccasse, est innocens.''' 1 
But even after recognising this condition, very 
disquieting doubts must remain, respecting 
which, vide No. II. A satisfactory assurance 
respecting the forgiveness of past sins would 
still be wanting. This leads us to the second 
part. 

II. Application of these Remarks to the Scriptural 
Doctrine concerning the Atonement of Christ. 

(1) The condition mentioned No. I. 4, how- 
ever reasonable and obvious it may be in itself, 
appears from experience and the history of all 
times, to be unsatisfactory to the great body of 
men. They never have received nor can receive 
from it a quieting assurance of the forgiveness 
of sins, and especially of those committed before 
their reformation. All nations hope, indeed, that 
God is disposed to forgive sins when they are for- 
saken ; but men need something more than this. 
They must have something external and sensible, 
to give them assurance and conviction that their 
sins have actually been forgiven. This assurance 
they endeavoured to obtain by sacrifices. Vide 
No. I. They believed universally that besides 
the moral improvement of the heart, some addi- 
tional means were necessary to conciliate the 
favour of God, and to avert the punishment of 
sin. Cf. Horn. II. ix. 493—508. This opinion 
is so deeply wrought into the human soul, and 
arises from such an universal sense of necessity, 
that any attempt to obliterate it or to reason it 
away would be in vain. To deprive men of this 
opinion, that the favour of God may be concili- 
ated and the positive assurance of pardon ob- 
tained, would be to tear away the props upon 
which their composure and confidence rest, with- 
out being able to substitute for them anything so 
clear and satisfactory ; and thus would be an act 
of injury and cruelty. 

(2) But what is the origin or ground of the 
feeling that reformation alone is insufficient, and 
that something else is necessary to avert the 
judgments of God from the sinner, and to in- 
spire him with confidence that they are or will 
be averted 1 This feeling is founded in the mo- 



ral nature of man, or in the voice of conscience. 
Vide s. 88, I. 2. For, 

(a) However far a man may advance in holi- 
ness, his conscience still declares to him that his 
holiness is very defective, and that he frequently 
commits sin, and that his sin deserves punish- 
ment. And the more upright and virtuous the 
man is, the more tender and strong will this 
feeling be. How, then, can he hope by a holi- 
ness so imperfect, polluted, and stained with 
sin, to secure the favour and approbation of 
God, and to escape unpunished ] To one who 
feels thus, how desirable and welcome must be 
the assurance that, notwithstanding his imper- 
fect holiness, God will still be gracious to him 
on certain conditions ! — the more desirable and 
welcome, the more he sees that he can never at- 
tain this assurance on any of the conditions 
above mentioned, No. I., 1, 2, 3. This assur- 
ance it is the object of the Christian doctrine 
of atonement to impart. 

(6) Although a man were thoroughly reformed, 
and should commit no more intentional sins, he 
would still remain in an anxious uncertainty with 
respect to his past sins ; for there is no ground to 
believe that on account of one's improvement God 
will remit the punishment of sins committed 
before this improvement commenced. Indeed, 
without an express assurance from God to the 
contrary, there are many reasons to fear that he 
will punish the former sins even of the penitent. 
This assurance to the contrary can be found 
alone in the Christian doctrine of the atonement 
of Christ. 

This feeling of necessity, therefore, this appre- 
hension and belief that besides improvement we 
need and must find some other means of obtain- 
ing assurance from God that the punishment of 
sin will be averted from us; this feeling lies 
deep in the soul of man, and is founded in his 
moral nature, in the voice of conscience. Let 
no one say that all men do not have this feeling, 
and that he himself neither has it now nor ever 
has had it. This feeling may be suppressed for 
a time by levity, or the tumult cf passion, or by 
cold and heartless speculation, or by both oi 
these causes united ; but it commonly revives 
in due time, especially in the hour of affliction, 
on the approach of death, or on other occasions 
which compel men to serious reflection. It then 
demands from them, as it were, its rights, and 
frequently to their great confusion; it excites 
anxious doubt and solicitude, and spreads out a 
dark futurity to view. This is a situation of 
frequent occurrence, but one in which no person 
would wish to be. Kant therefore, refers to this 
feeling in his philosophical theory of religion. 
On occasions like these such disquieting doubts 
and fearful apprehensions will often rise irre- 
sistibly, even in the minds of those who are 
above superstitious weakness, and, indeed, of 



334 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



speculative philosophers themselves, whose 
feelings had been the most suppressed and 
deadened. From these feelings no one is se- 
cure, however firmly established in his theory ; 
for the philosophy of the death-bed is a different 
thing from the philosophy of the study and of 
the school. 

A religion, therefore, coming with credentials 
from Heaven, which, on divine authority, gives 
to man satisfaction upon this subject ,• which 
shews him a means, elsewhere sought in vain, 
by which he can obtain composure and assur- 
ance against anxious doubts, and which teaches 
him to look forward with joy into the future 
world; such a religion may well claim to be 
considered a religion of high and universal utili- 
ty. Those who rob the Christian religion of 
this doctrine rob it of that which more than any- 
thing else makes it a blessing to man. 

(3) There is still another view of this subject. 
The great mass of mankind in all ages have no 
correct ideas respecting virtue and vice, or re- 
specting God and divine things. It is not strange 
therefore that they should have always and al- 
most universally believed that God might be 
conciliated by the most insignificant actions 
which they might perform without sincere re- 
formation, and which, indeed, they sometimes 
supposed might take the place of reformation. 
This was their idea of sacrifices, ceremonies, 
penances, fasts, &c. They made but little ac- 
count of moral purity and holiness of life. To 
relieve themselves of the trouble of caring for 
their own virtue they supposed that the virtue 
of others might be imputed to them. Vide No. 
I. and Meiners, Geschichte der Relioionem, s. 
125, f. 

At the time of Christ and the apostles these 
common mistakes prevailed, though in different 
forms, throughout the Jewish and heathen world. 
Now in the establishment of a universal religion, 
such as the Christian was intended to be, this 
fact demanded special attention ; (and not merely 
on account of that particular age, but on account 
of all following ages ; because these same mis- 
takes prevail among men in different forms at 
all times;) for the moral improvement of men, 
and the sincere and pure worship of God must 
be the great objects of this religion. But while 
it has these high and spiritual objects in view, 
and should make it possible for men to attain 
them, it must also be universal, designed for 
every individual. It must regard the necessities 
of all men, and not merely of the few who ac- 
count themselves wise, and esteem themselves 
philosophers. Sacrifices, on account of their 
imperfections and perversion, were to be for 
ever abolished. The other conditions of for- 
giveness were no longer to be tolerated, being 
false and injurious to morality. Sincere reforma- 
tion was the only condition left, and this was 



accompanied with the anxious solicitude before 
mentioned. This internal reformation and holi- 
ness was made by Jesus the indispensable con- 
dition of forgiveness, though not the procurin g- 
cause of it ; since, owing to the imperfection of 
our holiness, we could then never have obtained 
forgiveness. Now, in order to relieve the mind 
from the solicitude still accompanying this con- 
dition, and to satisfy this feeling of need, some- 
thing external must be added, which should 
powerfully affect the senses, not only of the 
Jews of that age, but of the heathen and of men 
in general. This must be something which 
would be obvious to every one, and not merely 
to a few ; something, too, which would not 
hinder or weaken the personal exercise of vir- 
tue and holiness of life, but rather promote and 
strengthen them. 

Such is the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. 
This can never lead to security in sin or indif- 
ference with regard to it, (as it has often been 
supposed to do,) because personal reformation 
and holiness (ixsravoia, dyta^toj) are connected 
with it as an indispensable duty, as conditio sine 
qua non. Christ died for men once for all, and 
suffered the punishment which they would have 
endured for -their sins, and which their con- 
sciences tell them they could not have escaped, 
even after their reformation. And thus the ne- 
cessity of continuing to sacrifice was removed, 
and the injurious consequences which attended 
sacrifices were obviated. " By Christ, and his 
sacrifice, men obtain from God (as Paul declares, 
Acts, xiii. 38) the forgiveness of all their sins ; 
and consequently, even of those which, according 
to the law of Moses, were unpardonable — i. e., 
would be irremediably punished," (for which 
reason sacrifices were now no longer necessary. 
No. I.) 

On one side, the infliction upon Christ of the 
penalty which we deserved places the authority 
and sanctity of the divine law in the clearest 
light, and shews the certainty of the execution 
of the divine punishment upon sin in a manner 
at once striking and in the highest degree alarm- 
ing. Cf. Romans, iii. 26, Elvcu cx'ut'ov (@ibv) 
Slxcuov. This doctrine thus guards against in- 
difference to sin, and, as experience teaches, ex- 
erts a powerful influence in reforming and en- 
nobling the moral character of every one who 
believes it from the heart. 

On the other side, this doctrine awakens in 
those who heartily receive it, love to God, who 
has made use of so great and extraordinary 
means for their forgiveness. It also excites gra- 
titude to God and to Christ. Vide the passages 
of the New Testament cited by Moms, p. 153, 
s. 6. One who really believes this doctrine, and 
does not feel the most lively love and gratitude 
to God and to Christ, and does not sympathize 
with all which the New Testament says upon 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 385 



this subject, (1 John, iv. 10, 11 ; John, iii. 16; 
Rom. v. 8; viii. 32,) must be destitute of every 
tender sensibility and of every human feeling-. 
The proof that this doctrine does actually excite 
this feeling and is adapted to the necessity of 
man, may be seen not only in the joyful recep- 
tion with which it met from the better part of 
the Jews at the time of the apostles, but also in 
the approbation of it in succeeding- ages, which 
has been, and is still, expressed by so many men 
of all nations ; and also in the astonishing- effects 
which it has produced. 

God, therefore, as the scriptures represent, 
(Rom. iii. 25,) has set forth Jesus as a Propi- 
tiator, to assure men of his gracious disposition 
towards them ; in order, by this means, both to 
lead them from a merely external service of him 
to a spiritual worship, and also to convince them 
in an affecting manner, as well of his holiness 
and justice as of his compassionate goodness 
and grace; and so, by the alarming- apprehen- 
sions and thankful feelings which flow from such 
considerations, to influence them to exercise pure 
virtue, sincere piety, and devotion to God, to 
cherish and exhibit love to hirn who first loved 
them. This representation, which is founded 
on the holy scriptures, contains nothing irra- 
tional, and is entirely suited to the moral nature 
of man. 

SECTION CIX. 

SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE NECES- 
SITY OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN; WHAT IS 
MEANT BY FORGIVENESS, PARDON, JUSTIFICA- 
TION ; AND THE SCRIPTURAL TERMS BY WHICH 
THEY ARE DESIGNATED. 

The Necessity and Indispe?isab!eness of Forgiveness. 

As sin is justly represented in the holy scrip- 
tures as a very great evil, from which no one is 
free, so, on the other hand, the forgiveness of 
sins is described as one of the greatest benefits, 
which no one can do without. It is very im- 
portant for the religious teacher to lead those 
committed to his charge to consider this subject 
as it is exhibited in the scriptures; for almost 
innumerable mistakes are made respecting it by 
men in every rank and of every character, the 
high and the low, the enlightened and the igno- 
rant. Many make but little account of sin, 
and, through levity or erroneous speculation, 
overlook its consequences, and of course make 
light of forgiveness. Others believe that they 
can easily obtain forgiveness, and rely on the 
mercy of God, or on the merits of Christ, with- 
out on their part performing the conditions upon 
which their trust in these merits and their ex- 
perience of them must depend. 

These injurious mistakes are opposed in 
many passages of the Bible. 
49 



(1) In such as describe the ruinous conse- 
quences of sin, and which present the judg- 
ments of God in a fearful and terrific light, as 
severe and intolerable — e. g., Heb. x. 31 ; Ps. 
xc. 11; cxxx. 3. To the same purpose are 
many of the examples given in the scriptures, 
especially in the history of the Israelites. 

(2) In such as describe the judgments of hea- 
ven upon those who do not fulfil the conditions 
prescribed, and are destitute of faith, in Jesus 
Christ, as certain and inevitable — e. g., Heb. iii. 
12, 13 ; Rom. ii. 1—3, coll. i. 32. 

(3) In such as shew that no one can enjoy 
tranquillity and happiness who has no assur- 
ance that his sins are forgiven — e. g., Heb. x, 
26, 27. The example of David and other saints, 
who have been deeply troubled on account of 
their sins, and anxious for the consequences of 
them, contain much instruction upon this sub- 
ject, Psalm li., cxxx., &c. 

II. Scriptural Terms and Phrases denoting For- 
giveness. 

The pardon or forgiveness of sin which men 
obtain from God is expressly mentioned in the 
New Testament as the effect and consequence 
of the atonement or redemption (u.rto%v-;pu>6i() 
of Christ. In Eph. i. 7, the afyeois rt apart rwud- 
tw is represented as belonging to the artc'kv- 
tpcocfcj ota aluai?o$ XptcfT'ov, and as a consequence 
of it. Cf. Col. i. 14; Heb. ix. 15; "Christ 
died £t$ a.7to/U;rpco<ju/ iW irti tfij Tipu>?y dia^rxvj 
7tapa,3a<jEwv." Romans, iii. 24, " We are par- 
doned, htxaiovuivoL bbu drto^rptocrfcoj tiqs sv 
Xpitf-rQ," &c. The principal terms are the fol- 
lowing — viz., 

(1) KaraM.ay^, reconciliation, (Germ. Ver- 
sohnung^) and xa-toJMqaaoiiai. Cf. Morus, pages 
113—166, s. 9—11. This phraseology was 
primarily used with respect to enemies who 
were reconciled, or who became friends again; 
1 Cor. vii. 11 ; Matt. v. 24. Then it was trans- 
ferred to God. The first origin of this phraseo- 
logy with respect to him is to be found in the 
fact that men had gross conceptions of the sub- 
ject, and supposed the manner of the divine 
conduct to be like that of men. Whoever trans- 
gressed the law of God provoked him to anger — 
i. e., to displeasure and to a strong expression 
of it. (Hence the judgments of God are called 
6py*7, ex8i,xrj6is ©jov.) God must now be ap- 
peased, and the transgressor must endeavour to 
make God again his friend. Such was the 
common and popular language on this subject — 
language which was universally intelligible, 
and which is always used in the holy scriptures 
in a sense worthy of God. Vide s. 86. Thus 
when it is said in the New Testament, 0j6j 
rtfi-iv xortoXka-ttt'taL, the meaning is, that through 
Christ he withholds the expression of his dis- 
pleasure, the punishment of sin. Thus Paul 
2K 



386 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



uses this phraseology, 2 Cor. v. 19, and ex- 
plains it by the addition ^ "hoyc^ouevos Ttapartfw- 
ixata- like the Hebrew ji# acri, Psalm xxxii. 1, 
2. In Rom. v. 11, he uses the phrase xata%- 
Xosyr{v ixdfiouev, in the same sense — i. e., we ob- 
tain from God the forgiveness of sin. The lat- 
ter passage shews clearly that xutoXkajyi] does 
not denote the moral improvement of men, as 
Eberhard, Gruner, and others explain it. On 
the contrary, the term always implies the idea 
of the mutual reconciliation of two parties, by 
which two or more who were not previously on 
good terms become friends again. Korfu'k , kayr i , 
then, as Morus remarks, (p. 165, ad finem,) 
means, the restoration of friendship, and the 
means of effecting this, through Christ ,• and xa- 
•taXkaGGtiv is, to bring about, or restore harmony 
and friendship. This harmony does not sub- 
sist between God and men as long as men are 
considered as transgressors, and God is com- 
pelled to punish them as such. They do not 
love God as their father, and he cannot love 
them as his children. That they learn how to 
love him, and that he is able to love them, they 
owe to Christ. He therefore is the peace-maker, 
the restorer of friendship, u xatofK%da6u>v. 

(2) *A<j>£<?t£ afxaptiuiv, atytsvcu, and the similar 
phrases xd^toLp^uv, #api£jtf^at a^aapftaj, rtapECJtj, 
x. t. %. 

(a) Explanation of these terms and of the sen- 
timent contained in them. "A^sfftj and dtyUvai 
are used literally to denote release, as from cap- 
tivity, Luke, iv. 18 ; also remission of debt (de- 
biti), Matt. vi. 12. Now sin was very fre- 
quently compared both with captivity and with 
debt; and hence, probably, this term was first 
used by the LXX. as correspondent with \\y was. 
This phrase was always opposed to the inflicting 
of punishment, or the wrath of God, and denotes 
remission, forbearing to inflict punishment; Ex. 
xxxiv. 7. In Mark, iii. 29, exsw a^crtv is con- 
trasted with Zvo%6s istcv xpl<5£a$. To take away 
sin, and take away punishment, were thus one 
and the same thing with the Hebrews, Is. liii. 
And so it comes to pass that the words which 
stand for sin also stand for punishment. Thus 
to forgive sin, and to heal sickness (jpcenapeccaii), 
were frequently the same, Matt. ix. 2, 5, 6, 
coll. Ps. ciii. 3. 

Similar to these are the other popular terms : 
as, Ttapfcrt?, which is, the act of overlooking, Rom. 
iii. 25. God does not look upon sins, he forgets 
them, does not think of them ; in opposition to 
thinking of them, placing them before his counte- 
nance (Psalm xc. 8) — i. e., punishing them, &c. 
Also, ^api^ao^at 7tapa7t?u>ua-ta, Col. ii. 13, 
spoken of the remission of guilt,- i^oJkzlfytiv 
djuapT'Kxj, Acts, iii. 19, answering to the Hebrew 
nrra, Is. xliii. 25; used also by Lysias. The 
figure in this case is taken from an account book, 
ie which the name of the debtor is obliterated 



when he has paid his debt, or when it is remit- 
ted to him. 

The phrases, xa^nxpl^sG^tai aty' a/xaptiwv, pcw- 
ti&o^ai, x.t.K.,to be purified, washed, to purify 
oneself, occur very frequently. They were de- 
rived from the very common comparison of sin 
with stains and impurities. Hence Moses or- 
dained purifications and washings as significant 
or symbolical rites. These phrases were used, 
first, in respect to men, and denoted self-purifi- 
cation {xa$ lavtov,) — i. e., moral reformation, 
1 John, iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Heb. x. 22 ; which 
however could not be done independently of 
God, but by his assistance; secondly, in respect 
to God. He is said to purify men from sin — i. 
e., to consider them as pure, innocent — not to 
punish them. So Ps. Ii. 4, "Wash me from 
mine iniquities ,•" 1 John, i. 9; 2 Pet. i. 9, 
xofeapiGubs tW rioXai o.uapt iH>v. 

(b) Some are not content with making the 
forgiveness of sins to consist in the removal of 
the punishment of sin, but would have it extend 
to the removal both of the guilt {culpa) and pu- 
nishment of sin, since both belong to the impu- 
tation of sin. This statement, understood in a 
popular sense, is not objectionable ; but strictly 
| understood, it is. The established theory re- 
| specting the remission of sin has been transmit- 
ted from the time of Anselrnus (s. 101, ad fin.), 
who brought the whole doctrine of justification 
into a judicial form, and arranged it like a legal 
process. Thus, when a thief has stolen, he 
must both restore the property stolen and suffer 
punishment. The guilt, in this case, is not re- 
moved by the punishment. The advocates of 
this opinion, therefore, comprehended under 
justification a special acquittal of guilt, different 
from the acquittal of punishment. This acquit- 
tal of guilt they considered as the imputation of 
j the righteousness of Christ imputed to men by 
God, in the same way as if it had been wrought 
by them. In this way, as they thought, was 
the guilt of sin removed. Vide s. 115. But, 

First. This distinction between the guilt and 
punishment of sin is never distinctly made in 
the Bible when the forgiveness of sins is spoken 
of. Some have considered this distinction as 
implied in the passages which speak of the pu- 
rification or washing away of sins, or in which 
sins are compared with debts; but without suf- 
ficient reason. The Bible makes justification 
the mere forgiveness of sins — i. e., removal of 
the punishment of them ; without any special 
acquittal of guilt connected with it; as Rom. vi. 
7, seq. Vide s. 110, "De obedienlia Christi 
activa," from which the doctrine " De obedien- 
tia Christi passiva" must not be separated. 
The obedience of Christ shewn in acting and 
suffering is one and the same. The fruits of 
this obedience we enjoy, as will be seen from 
the texts cited below. The Bible does not se- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 



c : 



parate one kind of obedience from the other; 
neither should we. Vide s. 115. 

Secondly. The remission of the guilt of sin is 
not essential, and does not contribute to the real 
tranquillity of the sinner. The guilt of a sin 
once committed cannot be effaced. The con- 
science of the transgressor can never be made to 
pronounce him innocent, but will always regard 
him as having sinned. It is enongh to compose 
his mind, to know and be convinced that the 
punishment of sin has been remitted. But how 
can he be made to believe, and be happy in be- 
lieving, that he is innocent, when, according to 
the testimony of his own conscience, he is 
guilty. 

Thirdly. The theory which teaches that the 
guilt of sin is removed is founded upon a com- 
parison of the conduct of God towards men with 
the conduct of men among themselves, which is 
here entirely inapplicable. A criminal (e. g., a 
thief) who sins against his fellow men does 
them an injury. He must therefore make good 
their loss, besides suffering punishment. But 
men, by sinning, do not injure or rob God. 
They wrong only themselves. Now if men fulfil 
the prescribed conditions of obtaining pardon, 
God remits the punishment of sin; but God 
himself cannot remove the guilt of sin, in its 
proper sense. For God cannot err, and consi- 
der an action which is actually wrong, and con- 
sequently involves guilt, as right in itself. He, 
however, can forgive us, or remit the punish- 
ment which we deserve. He can regard and 
treat us, on certain conditions, as if we were in- 
nocent. 

(3) Acxcucotfcj, Sixatoavv/j and Bixaiova^at, 7m- 
y^eo^at etj Sixaioavvrv, x. -t . "k. 

These terms of the Grecian Jews can be ex- 
plained only from the Hebrew usage, p-»s, in 
Hebrew and Arabic, in its primary and physical 
sense, means, rectus, firmus, rigidusfuit ,- then, 
in a moral sense, rectus fuit, in various modifi- 
cations, degrees, and relations — e. g., verus et 
verax fuit, bonus, sc. benignus fuit ,• severus, 
azquus, Justus, ixxocexs fuit, right, such as one 
should be,- Ps. cxliii. 2, "No man is right in 
the sight of God." Hence we can explain the 
significations of p^sn, §tx<uovv, facere justum ; 
and of SixaiovoSac, fieri justum. A man maybe 
justified in two ways — viz., 

(a) By perfect holiness, virtue, or upri ghiness 
of conduct; by being actually just, or such as 
one should be. Hence the phrase to justify, or 
to consider, pronounce, treat, reward one, as right, 
according to the above-mentioned sense. In 
this sense it is used by the LXX., Ps. cxliii. 2, 
ov Sixaico&rattai eVwttdi> gov rtaj £wv, and Ezek. 
xvi. 51, 52. This is called justifcatio interna. 
In this sense it is understood, in the important 
passage respecting justification, Rom. v., both 
by Socinians, who reject the doctrine of satis- 



faction, and by those of the Romish church who 
advocate good works as the procuring cause of 
salvation. But this interpretation does the 
greatest violence to the words in this passage. 

In connexion with this meaning, hxu.iovv 
sometimes signifies emendare, probum reddere, 
Psalm lxxiii. 13 (in the Septuagint), and Rev. 
xxii. 11, seq. Some of the schoolmen call this 
justificatio physica. 

(b) One who is guilty is said to be justified 
when he is declared and treated as exempt from 
punishment, or innocent, or when the punishment 
of his sins is remitted to him. This is called 
justificatio externa. The terms justification, 
pardon, accounting righteous, occur in the Bible 
much more frequently in this sense than in any 
other, and so are synonymous with forgiveness 
of sin. This sense is founded on the judicial 
meaning of the word pn?n, to pardon, acquit, pro- 
J nounce innocent, spoken of the Judge (pns inno- 
cens) ; and of the opposite, p^Tn, damnere, pro 
reo declarere (;*"'>> reus) — e. g., Ex. xxiii. 7 ; 
Prov. xvii. 15, seq. This is transferred to God, 
who is conceived as the judge of the actions of 
men. Here, however, we must be careful not 
to carry the comparison too far, and must ab- 
stract from our conceptions all the imperfections 
which belong to human conduct. He condemns, 
or judges, — i. e., he punishes,- — antecedent (the 
part of human judges) — pro consequents The 
opposite of this, to acquit, pardon (faxaiovv'), is 
then to remove punishment. This is done, how- 
ever, as the Bible everywhere teaches, not prop- 
ter justitiam internam hominis, as at human tri- 
bunals; for no one is innocent and pure from 
sin; Rom. iii. 19, seq. According to the gos- 
pel, God bestows favour upon men gratuitously, 
on account of faiih in Christ, on condition of 
holiness and of persevering in Christian confi- 
dence. 

The principal texts which support this doc- 
trine, and in which dixaiacsis and bixaiocvv^ 
stand in this sense, are Rom. iii., iv., v., in op- 
position to the Jewish doctrine of the desert of 
works. These passages will be examined in 
the following sections. In Romans, iv., the 
term btxaiovv is used ver. 5; toyufc^S-ou ^ixato- 
ovvrr, (Jo pardon, the opposite of ^.oyi^ajku 
auaptiav, to punish,) ver. 6 ; and atpuvai auap- 
■iio.v, ver. 7. In Rom. v. 9, 11, Sixaiovo^ai and 
xataMdrttoSai are interchanged in the same 
way ; and Bixaiooiv^ is explained by itev&pia 
arto — auc^Ttaj xat ^avdtov. The words Scxatovi , 
SixauxPvvr], are also oppnsed to ozyr, 0fov, Rom. 
i. 17, 18; to xardxpiais, Rom. v. 16. 18; to 
syxa%tZv, Rom. viii. 33. Of. Storr, " De signi- 
ficatione vocis btxatoi in Nov. Test.'" Opusc. 
Academica, t. i. 

Note. — The writings of theologians present ■ 
great diversity and difficulty in determining the 
idea of Stxauocus and Sixaiovv. Most of the an- 



388 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



cient Lutheran theologians, with whom Doder- 
lein and Seller agiee, consider justification as 
being merely the removal of punishment ; while 
Koppe, Zacharia, Less, Danov, and others, com- 
prise in this idea the whole purpose of God to 
bless and save men, of which the removal of 
punishment is only the commencement. These 
theologians maintain that justification is the 
same as predestination, only that justification is 
the less definite word of the two. Vide Zacha- 
ria, Bibl. Theol. iv. s. 548, seq., and especially 
Danov, Drey Abhandlungen von der Rechtfer- 
tigung; Jena, 1777; in answer to which Seiler 
wrote, " Ueber den Unterschied der Rechtfer- 
tigung und Predestination ;" Erlangen, 1777, 
8vo. 

Those who hold the former opinion consider 
the conferring of good as a consequence of jus- 
tification, and appeal to the obvious texts, Rom. 
v. 1, 18, 21; Gal. iii. 11. They remark, that 
exemption from punishment and bestowment of 
blessing are not one and the same thing, since 
one who is acquitted in court is not, of course, 
promoted and rewarded. Those who hold the 
latter opinion mention the fact that pnx fre- 
quently means, benefit, blessing, recompence, and 
construe the phrase npix 1 ? 3t?n, hoyi&o^ai sis 
8i,xcuo3vvrjv, which is first spoken of the faith 
of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, to mean, to reckon as a 
merit, to reward; in the same way, Psalm cvi. 
31, and Romans, iv. 4, where Paul himself ex- 
plains pyt_ by [iio$6$. The declaring Abraham 
righteous did not consist in the simple forgive- 
ness of his sins, but in the bestowment of bless- 
ing and reward. Cf. James, ii. 21. 

The following considerations may help to set- 
tle the controversy : — 

(1) The purposes of God to forgive the trans- 
gressor his sins, and to make him happy, are 
one and the same ; but they may be distinguish- 
ed in our conceptions of them, and then his be- 
stowing reward is the immediate consequence 
of his granting forgiveness. For when God 
forgives one his sins, the bestowment of the 
promised good immediately succeeds. And 
when God sees one incapable of this good, he 
does not forgive his sins. 

(2) The sacred writers do not, in their terms, 
so carefully distinguish and so logically divide 
these two ideas, which are so nearly related, as 
we do in scientific discussion. This is the less 
strange, as the words hxuiovv and Sixawostj have 
very many and various senses, one of which fre- 
quently runs into the other. The words are 
sometimes used in the Bible exclusive, beyond a 
doubt, of the idea of blessing, and sometimes 
also inclusive of it. 

(3) But this should not hinder us from dis- 
tinguishing these ideas, and considering them 
separately, for the sake of clearness in scientific 
discussion. Here, however, as in respect to all 



the divine purposes, we must guard against the 
idea of succession ; and also against mistake from 
a comparison with human tribunals, where one 
may be entirely acquitted, without, however, 
receiving reward, or any further provision for 
his welfare. The accused is absolved, and then 
left to seek his fortune where he pleases. But 
this is not the manner of God. Upon every one 
whom he forgives, or whom he counts right- 
eous, God immediately bestows, on the ground 

[ of faith in Jesus Christ, all the good and bless- 
ing which the subject of his grace is capable of 

I enjoying. This is the reason why the sacred 
writers frequently connect these two ideas in 
the same word. Cf. Noesselt, Pfingstprogramm, 
Be eo quid sit, Deum condonnare hominibus pec- 
cata, poenasque remittere? Halae, 1792, (in his 
Exercitt.) 

Morus (p. 151, s. 5) has therefore well de- 
fined and explained the scriptural idea of the 
forgiveness of sins in the wide sense in which it 
frequently occurs in the Bible, as including 
(1) exemption by God from the fatal conse- 
quences of sin — i. e., from fear of the suffering 
or punishment consequent upon sin, and from 
this suffering and punishment itself, (firj drtdteu- 
^cu, John, iii. ;) (2) the bestowment of bless- 
ings, (£u>r\v azsw,) instead of this deserved pu- 
nishment. For both we are indebted to Christ. 
The ground and motive, however, of the forgive- 
ness of sin on the part of God is his unmerited 
goodness and benevolence. This is the uniform 
representation of the holy scriptures, John, iii. 
16, seq. Morus, p. 152, s. 6. 

SECTION CX. 

ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT 
THAT MEN OWE IT TO CHRIST ALONE THAT GOD 
JUSTIFIES THEM, OR FORGIVES THEIR SINS. 

Since sin consists in transgression of the 
divine law, it is the prerogative of God alone to 
forgive sin. So the Bible everywhere teaches ; 
Ps. Ii.; James, iv. 12, coll. Luke, v. 21. The 
gospel teaches that we are indebted for this for- 
giveness to Christ alone, — that God forgives on 
account of Christ. It everywhere magnifies this 
as one of the greatest divine favours, and as the 
foundation of all our blessedness; John, iii. 16; 
vi. ; Heb. ix. 15; Rom. v. 1. Accordingly, the 
doctrine of forgiveness through Christ is always 
enumerated by the apostles among the principal 
doctrines and elementary principles of Chris- 
tianity, which were never to be withheld in reli- 
gious instruction. Vide 1 Thess. i. 10, 'Iqaovs 
6 jjvofisvos Tjuds drto t 1 *^ opy^j t$%o\jLtv?i$, et alibi. 
The Acts of the apostles and their epistles shew 
that they always commenced with this doctrine, 
and referred everything to it, both with Jews 
and Gentiles, enlightened and ignorant; because 
it is equally essential to all. 






STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 



389 



The following classes comprise the principal 
proof-texts relating to this .point: — 

(1) The texts which declare that Christ has 
atoned for us ; and that to procure the remission 
of sins was the great object of his advent to the 
world; and that he accomplished this object; 
1 John, ii. 1,2; Heb. i. 3, Ac-' eavtov xa^tapcafibv 
TtoLqadfispos tuv afiap-ti-wv '^wv. Heb. ix. 26, 
" He has appeared before God (rts^aveputaa,, ver. 
24) with his offering, (Sta §vaia$ cwutfov,) to take 
away sin, (ftj d^tetqauv dpaptla^y^ — i. e., he 
sacrificed himself for us, he died for us, to free 
us from the punishment of sin, (vide ver. 14.) 

(2) The texts which require from us an un- 
limited confidence (relate) in Christ, for the rea- 
son that we are indebted to him and to his perr 
son for our spiritual welfare and our acceptance 
with God. Acts, xxvi. 18, %aj5elv dfyeGw auap- 
i'iwv — 7tl6tsttv aj s/xi. ii. 38; Rom. v. 1, 
Aixcuu>§£vt£S ex rttWfcoj, e I privy v e%ouev rtpoj 
©fdv (the favour of God and peace of mind) bid 
XpttfT'oi;, (which we owe to Christ.) Eph. i. 7, 
'Ei/ a (XpttfT'o) exouev a7to%vtpc$Gi>v 6ta ai'[iovto$ 
av-tov — i. e., fqv atysticv rtaparttidudtidv. 

(3) The texts which teach that there is no 
other way besides this in which the forgiveness 
of sin can be obtained. Heb. x. 26, " For those 
who apostatize, contrary to their better convic- 
tions respecting Christ (ixovtiux dfiaptavovrcov, 
ver. 23 ; iii. 12, 13), there remains no atoning 
sacrifice (£Wov rtepi a^aptftwv)" — i. e., there is 
no way for them to obtain the forgiveness of 
their sins, since this is the only way, and this 
way they despise. Cf. Heb. vi. 4, seq. The 
discourse of Peter, Acts, iv. 12, Ovx e<rtw Iv 
iiXk<$ 6(*rtvjpia, x. t. 7u Scor^pta, in this pas- 
sage, is good, happiness, here and hereafter. 
This happiness can be obtained through no other 
person. The name (person) of no other man 
under heaven is given to us for this object. 
"Ovofia here is connected iv di^-pc^otf, no name 
among men. The meaning is, " We are direct- 
ed by God to no other man, however holy, 
through whom to obtain safety and happiness, 
besides Jesus Christ." 

(4) The texts which teach clearly and ex- 
pressly that God forgives men their sins, or jus- 
tifies them, and frees them from the punishment 
of sin, solely on account of Christ. Acts, x. 
43, "To him gave all the prophets witness, 
that whoever believes in him should through 
him (§£,<x dvofiato^ avtov) receive remission of 
sins." (Cf. Ps. xxii., xl., ex. ; Is. liii.) Acts, 
xiii. 38, "At a To^t'ov vulv a^tffcj dfjcaptiuiv 
xatayye'k'kttai, even of those from which you 
could not be justified according to the law of 
Moses." 1 John, ii. 12, 'Atyiwtcu, v(uv at 
duaptiai Sta to ovo/.ia ojitov, propter, Christum. 
Rom. v. 10, KcrtrjMjdyrjfjiev tq ©f£ bid toy ^tavd- 
tov tov Tlov avtov, coll. ver. 18, and'l Thess. 
i. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, " God treated him, who had 



never sinned, as a sinner, in our stead, that wo 
might he forgiven by God ; ye vojjxe^a hixaioavvq 
Qeov (i. e., Sixaioc, evdmov ©fo-G) iv avta, ,, on 
his account, ver. 19. 

But the passage which exhibits the mind o^ 
Christ and the apostles most fully and clearly 
is Romans, iii. 21 — 28. Cf. Noesselt, Abhand- 
lung, Opusc. t. ii. Paul here opposes the pre- 
vailing mistake respecting the merit of good 
works, and of the observance of the law, and 
the opinion that God loved the Jews alone, and 
comparatively disregarded every other people. 
Paul shews that, on the contrary, God feels 3 
paternal interest in all men, and is willing to 
forgive all, since all, as sinners, need forgive- 
ness ; but that men can never obtain a title to 
this forgiveness by their own imperfect obedi- 
ence to the law, but only by faith in Christ, to 
whom they are indebted for this favour, and in 
a way exclusive of all personal desert. "Now 
(in the times of the New Testament) we are 
made acquainted, by the Christian doctrine, 
with the purpose of God to forgive us (Sixaic- 
cvvq Qeov, ver. 22, 21,) without respect to the 
observance of the law as anything meritorious, 
(#copij v6[*ov ;) of which purpose frequent indi- 
cations appear even in the Old Testament. 
This is God's purpose to forgive men, on ac- 
count of their faith in Jesus Christ, without 
their own desert. This forgiveness is extended 
to all (Jews and Gentiles) who believe in 
Christ. All are sinners, unworthy of the di- 
vine favour, and deserving of punishment. But 
God, in the exercise of his impartial, paternal 
love, desires to make all men happy, and ac- 
cordingly intends this to be the means of the 
happiness of all. But this forgiveness is be- 
stowed upon them without their deserving it, 
(Scopedv,) from the mere mercy {xdpi{) of God, 
through the atonement of Christ. God hath 
appointed Christ to be an atoning sacrifice, 
(tTiowrrpt-ov,) or a propitiator through faith in 
his blood, (i. e., Go.d forgives us on his account, 
if we place our whole reliance upon his death, 
endured for our good.) He now indulgently 
forgives us our past sins, (committed before our 
conversion to Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 15.) He now 
shews (in these times of the New Testament) 
how merciful he is to all men, by forgiving 
(Sixaiovvta) every one (Jew or Gentile) who 
believes in Jesus Christ, {xbv ex rtictftoj.)" 

The question arises, how and by ichat means 
has Christ procured for us pardon from God, or 
the forgiveness of sins] 

W T e find many clear declarations upon this 
point in the discourses of Jesus himself, espe- 
cially in the Gospel of John, where he frequent- 
ly speaks of his death, and of the worth and ad- 
vantages of it; John, iii. 14; Matt. xxvi. We 
find passages of the same kind even in the dis- 
courses of John the Baptist, John, i. 29 ; and in 
2k2 



390 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



the prophecies to which Christ appeals as re- 
ferring to himself ; Ps. xxii., xl. ; Is. liii. But 
this doctrine is more clearly explained, deve- 
loped, and applied in the instructions of the 
apostles. While Christ was visibly upon the 
earth, he laid the foundation for this doctrine, 
but left it for his disciples to make a more full 
development and application of this, as well as 
of many other doctrines, after his sufferings and 
death should have become facts which had al- 
ready taken place. That the views which they 
give upon this subject did not originate merely 
in the conceptions then prevalent among the 
Jews and heathen, but are exactly suited to the 
universal necessities of man, is clear from s. 
108. 

But there have always been some in the 
Christian church, and many in modern times, to 
whom this doctrine, so clearly taught in the 
New Testament, has been offensive, as it was 
formerly to many Jews and heathen; 1 Cor. i. 
2. And so they endeavour to give a different 
view from that given in the New Testament of 
the nature of the benefits which Christ has con- 
ferred upon the human race, confining them to 
his doctrine, and the results of it. So Socinus, 
and many of the same opinion in other parties. 
Sometimes they endeavour to deduce their opi- 
nions by a forced interpretation from the Bible. 
Sometimes they hold that the subject should 
not be definitely stated, at least in popular dis- 
course, — that it is sufficient to say, in general, 
we obtain forgiveness of sin through Christ, or 
through faith in Christ, leaving every one to un- 
derstand this statement in his own way. But 
the meaning of this indefinite phraseology must 
certainly be explained in theological instruction. 
Should it, then, be withheld from the people ] and 
is it honest to refer the common people and the 
young to the holy scriptures by the language 
employed, and at the same time to teach them 
something widely different from what is con- 
tained in the Bible ! If the conscience of any 
one does not pronounce such conduct inexcusa- 
ble, he should renounce the idea of being a 
Christian teacher. The question here is not, 
how the doctrine may be understood by learned 
men, judging independently of the authority of 
Revelation, but how the doctrine is taught in 
the New Testament? Since this book lies at 
the foundation of religious knowledge, the doc- 
trines and ideas which it contains should be ex- 
plained, and in a way which will be intelligi- 
ble to those who hear. And considering how 
adapted to the wants of man the scriptural doc- 
trine of forgiveness is, what a powerful influ- 
ence it exerts, how much it does to tranquillize 
the mind, to purify and elevate the character, it 
would be an act of rashness and cruelty to de- 
stroy the faith of men in it, and to rob them of 
a belief in place of which nothing can be sub- 



stituted at once so plain to the reason, so bene- 
ficial to the character, and so consoling to the 
heart. 

The Bible ascribes the forgiveness which is 
procured for us by Christ principally to the fol- 
lowing points — viz., (1) his sufferings and vio- 
lent death; which is often called, according to the 
Hebrew idiom, al/xa Xpifftfoi; and 6tavpo$. This 
is the principal thing. In connexion with this it 
places (2) his resurrection, and (3) his interces- 
sion. On these grounds God justifies or for- 
gives men. These three parts will therefore be 
separately considered. S. Ill, 112. 

Note. — We should not stop with one of these 
particulars, and overlook the rest. The resur- 
rection of Christ, according to the New Testa- 
ment, assures us of the validity of his atone- 
ment; and his intercession imparts a deep con- 
viction that, although he has ascended into the 
heavens, he is still mindful of us, and cares for 
our welfare. These three points together com- 
pose the entire meritum Christi. Persons are said 
mereri, or, bene mereri de aliquo, when they as- 
; sist another to obtain possession of any advan- 
: tage. Sometimes these advantages themselves, 
which are obtained by the assistance of a bene- 
; factor, are called merita. But the custom of the 
■ schools, ever since the time of the schoolmen, 
I has been, to call the death of Christ, so far as 
J we are indebted to it for pardon and eternal hap- 
piness, the meritum Christi, by way of emi- 
nence ; meaning that we owe these spiritual 
blessings to the death of Christ, without deny- 
ing that he has deserved well of the human race 
in other ways. Considering that this phraseo- 
logy has now become established in systema- 
tic theology, Morus (p. 171, 172, s. 5) justly 
thinks that it should be preserved, as a devia- 
tion from it might produce confusion. 

SECTION CXI. 

OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF CHRIST ; HOW 
FAR WE ARE INDEBTED TO THEM FOR OUR JUS- 
TIFICATION OR PARDON ; TOGETHER WITH OB- 
SERVATIONS ON SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL AT- 
TRIBUTES (AFFECTIONES) OF THE DEATH OF 
CHRIST. 

We shall adhere, in this place, simply to the 
doctrine and representations of the New Testa- 
ment, and hereafter (s. 114) treat of the various 
explanations which have been given in later 
times of this doctrine, and of the various eccle- 
siastical opinions de satisfactions. 

I. The Sufferings and Death of Christ ; and how 
far men are indebted to them for their Justifica- 
tion or Forgiveness. 

By the sufferings and death of Christ, accord- 
ing to the scriptures, many objects and ends 
which God had in view were attained, and they 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 391 



may therefore be considered in various lights, 
all of which are important and full of instruc- 
tion. Thus the death of Christ furnishes a proof 
of the great love of God and of Christ to us. It 
is an example of the greatest steadfastness, con- 
fidence in God, and patience, &c. And these 
views of it are often presented in the New Tes- 
tament, but by no means the most frequently. 
The sufferings and death of Christ are mainly 
considered as the ground or procuring-cause of 
our forgiveness and of our spiritual welfare. 
" All men are sinners, and consequently deserv- 
ing of punishment. The ground on which God 
pardons them, or forgives their sin, is the suf- 
ferings and death of Christ, or his blood shed 
for them. He endured the misery which we 
should have endured as the penalty of sin, in 
order that we might be saved from deserved 
punishment." Such is the uniform doctrine of 
the Bible, the reason and object of it are plain 
from what was remarked in s. 103. Without 
this doctrine the Bible is not consistent. Our 
forgiveness, then, does not depend upon our re- 
formation and holiness, by which we deserve no- 
thing from God, (Gal. ii. 21 ;) but upon the 
death of Christ, of which cur holiness is the re- 
sult. The death of Christ is the antecedent, our 
holiness the consequent. 

This doctrine is briefly and summarily taught 
in the following passages, part of which have 
been already explained, and the remainder of 
which will be hereafter; viz., Matt. xxvi. 28; 
Rom. Hi. 25; v. 8, 9 ; Eph. i. 7; Heb. ix. 12, 
15, 28; 1 John, i. 7. 

The death of Christ, however, is not here 
mentioned, exclusively of his other sufferings. 
Vide s. 95. All together constitute that which 
Paul calls the vrtaxor] of Christ, Rom. v. 19, 
because he endured them from obedience to God, 
Phil. ii. 8. Theologians call them all obedientia 
passiva. But death, especially a violent death, 
most deeply moves our sensibilities, and com- 
prises, as we regard it, the sum and substance 
of all other sufferings and punishments. For 
this reason the New Testament makes more fre- 
quent mention of the death, blood, and cross of 
Christ. 

Thje following passages clearly and distinctly 
teach that Christ has effected the deliverance 
of man from the deserved punishment of sin, by 
means of his sufferings and violent death — viz., 
(1) The texts which teach that Christ suf- 
fered or died for all sinners, or for ail the sins 
of men ; 6td (jtapartf cottar a), rtfpt (rfoUwc), 
but more commonly rrttp (duapt'toxlr,' or nav- 
*wv or aaaprttor rjfiuivY Hebrew. "?j?. E. g., 
Matt. xxvi. 28, "The blood shed/or many, for 
the remission of sins." Rom. iv. 25 ; v. 6 ; 1 
Cor. xv. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; Is. 
liii. 5, seq. 

It has been objected against this proof, that 



to do a thing vrtsp rtvoj, sometimes means sim- 
ply to do it for the good of any one, to instruct 
him, improve him, or to give him an example. 
So Col. i. 24, where Paul speaks of his sufferings 
for the good of (tWp) the Colossians and of the 
whole Christian church, because he was perse- 
cuted by his enemfes, and then imprisoned at 
Rome. But the sense even here is, "he con- 
gratulates himself that he can undergo in his 
own person what would otherwise have befallen 
the whole church ; while the general hatred 
lights upon him, others escaped." When now 
this phraseology is used in the New Testament 
with reference to Christ, it never means that he 
died to teach men, &c. ; but always, instead, in 
the place of men, to deliver them. He suffered 
what we should have suffered; endured the 
penalty of the law, which we should have en- 
dured. This is confirmed by the passage Is. 
liii., from which these terms are so frequently 
borrowed in the New Testament. And this is 
decisively proved by the passage Rom. v. G, 
where it is said that Christ died for (vrtip) sin- 
ners. This cannot mean that by his death he 
gave men an example of firmness, or sought to 
reform them. For in ver. 7, we read, "There 
are but few instances among men (like that of 
Damon and Pythias) of one dying for an inno- 
cent friend ; and indeed the examples are rare 
of one dying (as Peter was willing to do vrtsp 
Xptcr-roiJ, John, xiii. 37) even for a benefactor, 
(dya^dj.) But there is no example of one dying 
for rebels and criminals, to rescue them from 
the death which they deserved, and yet so did 
Christ die for us." Paul could not have ex- 
pressed his meaning more clearly. According- 
ly, he says, 2 Cor. v. 14, "Did one (Christ) 
die for all, then were all dead." 

Further; if this phraseology meant nothing 
more than is contended for by the objector, it 
might be used with reference to the death of the 
apostles and other martyrs. But this is never 
the case in the New Testament. No one of 
them is ever said to have died for the world, 
for sinners, or sin. It is said respecting Christ 
exclusively, uti — ?l? vjtkp itavtuv axi^avs, 2 
Cor. v. 14, 15, coll. 1 Cor. i. 13, " Was Paul 
crucified for (wtsp) you V 

The meaning, then, of the phraseology, 
" Christ suffered/or us, or in our place" is this : 
" Since Christ suffered for our sins, we ourselves 
are freed from the necessity of enduring the pu- 
nishment which they deserved. It is the same as 
if we had ourselves endured this punishment; 
and therefore it need no longer be feared." The 
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, 
and Hebrews, are full of texts of this import. 
Cf. Morus, p. 151, and Storr, Doctrina Christ, 
p. 254. 

fjl) The texts whi«h teach that Christ wag 
treated as a sinner; and this in our stead, thai 



392 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



we might le considered as forgiven by God. 
2 Cor. v. 21, where a^ap^'a or dpap'tid'kbv riouiv, 
is, to treat one as a sinner, to punish him ; as the 
opposite Scxcuov rtoulv or Sixaiovv is to treat as 
innocent, to forgive. Jesus was treated in this 
way vrcsp tjjjluv, which is explained by what 
follows, "that we, on Christ's account, might 
be treated by God as just or innocent" — i. e., 
might be saved from deserved punishment; 
ytviofjLs^a Sixaiotsvv?] ®sov — i. e., Bixcuoc ivutritov 
®sov. So also Gal. iii. 13, "Christ hath re- 
deemed us (who as sinners must fear the threat- 
enings of the law) from the threatened punish- 
ment of the law (jcar'apa vo/xov), ysvojxsvos 
vrtip fjpuiv xai'aptt," for £7tixaT?dpato<;, (as in 
ver. 10 ;) — i. e., by enduring for us a cruel capi- 
tal punishment, (to which, according to the 
law of Moses, only the grossest offenders were 
liable.) Cf. Isaiah, liii. 4 — 6, from which the 
apostles frequently borrow these and similar 
expressions. 

(3) With the passages already cited belong 
those which teach that Christ took upon himself 
and bore the sins of men — i. e., endured the pu- 
nishment which men would have endured for 
their sins. In Hebrew the phrase is pj? sir:, or 
Ssd; in the Septuagint and the New Testament, 
tyspeiv or atpfcv d^apr'taj. It occurs in the text, 
Is. liii. 4, which is always referred by the New 
Testament to Christ. Also John, i. 29 ; lPet.ii. 
24 ; Heb. ix. 28, &c. Some would render fyipziv 
or oXpeiv afiaptCav by auferre peccatum, to make 
men virtuous, to reform, them in a moral respect. 
The only passage in the New Testament in 
in which the phrase will bear this interpretation 
is 1 John, iii. 5, where it is equally capable of 
the other rendering. The phrase commonly 
has the meaning first given, and a different in- 
terpretation does the greatest violence to the 
passages in which it occurs; the comparison 
being so clearly derived from sacrifices. 

But what is the origin of this signification of 
the term? In the Old Testament, sin is fre- 
quently compared with a burden which oppresses 
any one, and which he is compelled to carry, 
when he feels the unpleasant consequences of 
sin, or is punished. So in Arabic, to bear one's 
own or another's burden. Hence the phrase was 
used in reference (a) to the victim, which was 
sacrificed for the atonement of sin. The victim 
was supposed to have the sin or punishment 
laid upon it; Lev. xvi. 21, 22. (b) In reference 
to men ,• and first, to such as were punished for 
their own sins, Lev. xx. 19; xxiv. 15; and, se- 
condly, to such as were punished on account of 
the sins of others, Lam. v. 7, " We must bear 
the sins of our fathers." Ezek. xviii. 20 ; also, 
Is. liii., " The punishment lies on him ; he bears 
our sins." This sense holds in the passages 
cited from the New Testament. John, i. 29, 
"Behold the (sacrificial) lamb acceptable to 



God, which bears the sins of. the world!" — a 
comparison drawn from sacrifices. This com- 
parison is inapplicable, according to the other 
interpretation — the Lamb which makes us pious 
and virtuous. In Heb. ix., the figure implied 
in Ttpooevtz^els is taken from sacrifices. In 1 
Pet. ii. 24, the two ideas are distinguished ; 
first, "he bore our sins on the cross," (i. e., 
suffered on the cross the punishment of our 
sins;) then, "that we might die to sin (spiritu- 
ally), and live wholly to holiness, (8Lxaioovvr r y 

(4) The passages which teach that the death 
of Christ was a ransom for us, (xitpov, d-vrC- 
%vtpov,) 1 Tim. ii. 6, and even in the discourse 
of Christ, Matt. xx. 28. The term %vtpov de- 
notes anything by which one is freed, delivered, 
Vide s. 10G, II. The meaning of the proposition, 
then, is this : The death of Christ was the means 
of delivering and rescuing us from the greatest 
misery, from the punishment of sin; or, accord- 
ing to Heb. ix. 12, " Christ, alioviav Xv-tpuoLv 
£vpd[X£vos, effected our eternal liberation from 
misery and punishment;" Is. xliii. 3, 4. 

(5) Al^the texts which compare the death of 
Christ with the sacrifices and Levitical ordi- 
nances of the Old Testament; also the texts 
which teach that the death of Christ obtained, 
once for all, and in a far more perfect manner, 
the advantages which men had hoped to obtain 
from their sacrifices and expiatory rites. This 
doctrine was indeed founded in the ideas preva- 
lent at that period, and was particularly evident 
and convincing to the Jews then living, and to 
such of the heathen nations as were accustomed 
to the rites of sacrifice. But it was by no means 
intended for such exclusively; since it is also 
founded in a feeling which is universal among 
men, that some means of atonement are neces- 
sary ; s. 108. The apostles, therefore, in their 
instructions to Jews, heathen, and Christians, de- 
rive their expressions and comparisons from sa- 
crifices, and only in their instructions to Jews, 
from the particular services of the Mosaic ritual. 

The idea which lies at the foundation of this 
comparison is this : " Christ by his death liberated 
us from death'''' (punishment of sin), which we 
should have suffered ; and we should see in him 
(a) what dreadful consequences our sins incur, 
and (b) how gracious God is, in forgiving us for 
the sake of Christ." Ephes. v. 2, napiSuxsv 
tavtbv vrthp TjfiHv ®sa rtpocstyopav, $v6iav, 
dopYjv fvwSt'aj. Romans, iii. 25, (ixaGt^piov.} 
Heb. ix. 7, 1 1—28 ; x. 1—14 ; Acts, xiii. 38, &c, 
Hence the term alfxa {csedes cruenta), which sa 
frequently stands for the death of Christ, is to be 
understood in its full sense. It frequently stands 
in such a connexion as shews that the figure is 
derived from the blood of the sacrificial victim, 
and from the qualities ascribed to it — e. g., Heb. 
ix. 13, 14, alixa tavpu>v xal tpdyuv, in opposition 
to alfta XpiOTfov— xa^apui. 1 John, i. 7, "The 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 393 



blood of Christ cleanses" &c. 1 Pet. i. 19, 
"The blood of Christ, a lamb without spot or 
blemish" 

Taking all these texts together, there is no 
room to doubt that the apostles entertained the 
opinions respecting the death of Christ, and its 
effect, which were ascribed to them at the com- 
mencement of this section. These opinions have 
been shewn (s. 108), not only to correspond with 
the particular circle of ideas with which they 
were familiar at that period, but to meet a uni- 
versal necessity of man. This is a necessity r 
indeed, which is but little felt by the learned, 
and least of all by the merely speculative scho- 
lar. Vide 1 Cor. i. — iii. 

II. Universality, and Perfect and Perpetual Validity 
of the Atonement. 

(1) Its universality. Two points must here 
be noticed. 

First. According to the clear testimony of 
the Bible, Christ endured death for the whole 
human rGce ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, vrthp rtdvtav arts- 
§dvv. Ver. 19, " God reconciled the world to 
himself through Christ." 1 Tim. ii. 6, 8ov$ 
tavtbv avtL%vtpov irtep Ttdvtav. 1 John, ii. 2, 
" He is the propitiator, not only for our sins, (i. 
e., those of Christians,) but also for the sins 
b'Kov tov xoapov" &c. But the passages which 
are most explicit upon this subject are found in 
the epistle to the Romans, where Paul contro- 
verts the mistaken opinion of the Jews that the 
blessings of the Messiah's kingdom belong ex- 
clusively to the posterity of Abraham. He 
shew T s, Romans, v. 12 — 19, that as one man was 
the author of sin in the world, and of the conse- 
quent punishment which all now endure, so one 
man is the author of salvation and forgiveness 
for all. In Romans, iii. 9, 22, he shews that as 
the moral disease is universal among men, the 
remedy must needs be universal; and, in ver. 
29, that the benevolence of God is not confined 
to a small portion, but embraces the whole fa- 
mily of man. 

In such passages of the New Testament, the 
term rtoXkoi or ol rfoMun frequently stands for 
jtew/tfsj. E. g., Rom. v. 19, ol rtoXkob stands for 
all men who are obnoxious to punishment and 
need forgiveness; as it reads ver. 12, 18. The 
same in ver. 15. Cf. Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28 ; 
1 Cor. x. 33, &c. The Hebrews used the word 
crn in the same way, Is. liii. 12. Ml involves 
the idea of many, and hence in the ancient lan- 
guages the words which signify many are often 
used to denote universality — so many! such a 
multitude! This was the case especially where 
only one was pointed out in contrast to the many ; 
one for so many ! 

Note. — The question has been asked, whether 
Christ died for the ungodly. The strict particu- 
larists and predestinarians answered this ques- 
50 



tion in the negative, on the ground that the 
death of Christ does not actually secure the sal - 
vation of the wicked, and is of no advantage to 
them. But because some, by their own fault, 
derive no advantage from the death of Christ, 
we cannot say that the death of Christ does not 
concern them, and that Christ did not die for 
them, any more than we can say that divine in- 
struction has no power in itself to reform man- 
kind, because many will not allow themselves 
to be reformed by it. Moreover, this opinion is 
inconsistent with the New Testament. In 2 Pet. 
ii. 1, the false teachers and deceivers, whom a 
dreadful destruction awaited, are said expressly 
to deny the Lord who bought (redeemed) them. 
Misunderstanding and logomachy may be obvi- 
ated by attending to the just remark of the 
schoolmen, that the design of the death of Christ, 
and the actual results of it, should be distinguish- 
ed. Aciu prima, Christ died for all men; but 
actu secundo, not for all men, but only for be- 
' lievers — i. e., according to the purpose of God, 
I all might be exempted from punishment and 
rendered happy by the death of Christ; but all 
J do not suffer this purpose actually to take effect 
with regard to themselves ; and only believers 
actually attain to this blessedness. 

Secondly. Christ removed the whole punish- 
ment of sin; his death atoned for all sins. So 
the apostles declare. 1 John, i. 7, "The blood 
of Christ cleanses from all sin." Romans, v. 
I 16 ; viii. 1, ovb~ev xatdxpcua ioic, Iv XpctfT'Q, Acts, 
I xiii. 38, &c. But an apparent difficulty is here 
suggested, which must be answered from the 
discussion respecting punishments, (s. 86, 87,) 
I and can therefore only be touched here. 

Now there are two kinds of punishments — 
viz., natural, such as flow from the nature and 
character of the moral action itself, (e. g., debi- 
lity and disease from luxurious excess;) and 
positive, such as do not result directly from the 
nature and character of the moral action, but are 
connected with it by the free will of the law- 
giver. God actually threatens to inflict such 
positive punishments upon the wicked, espe- 
cially in the future world ; just as he promises, 
on the other hand, to bestow positive rewards in 
the future world upon the righteous, s. 87. 
Again; the natural punishments of sin are of 
two kinds — viz., (a) physical, as sickness in 
consequence of immoderation; and (b) moral 
(by far the worst!), such as disquiet of mind, 
remorse of conscience, and dread of God ; s. 86, 
II. 2. 

Now, has Christ redeemed us from all these 
punishments 1 Those who mean to speak strictly 
and logically reply, no! Christ has redeemed 
us, properly speaking, only from positive divine 
punishments in the future world, and from that 
kind of wa^ra/punishments which may be called 
moral, or the evil results of sin in a moral respect. 



394 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Even the man who is reformed still retains the 
consciousness of the sins which he has commit- 
ted, and reflects upon them with sorrow, shame, 
and regret. But the pardoned sinner knows 
that God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven his 
sins; and so is no longer subject to that disquiet 
of mind, pain of conscience, dread of God and 
despair— the poena moralis of sin, which render 
the wicked miserable. 

The physical part of natural punishment in- 
deed remains, even after the transgressor is re- 
formed. If any one, by his extravagance, has 
made himself sick and poor, he will not, in con- 
sequence of being pardoned and renewed, become 
well and prosperous. The physical conse- 
quences of sin continue, not only through the 
present life, but probably through the life to 
come. They can be obviated only by a miracu- 
lous interference of God, which is nowhere pro- 
mised. But these very physical consequences 
of sin, whose evil is so lasting, are like a bitter 
medicine; they have a good effect, and secure 
us from turning again from the right path. Al- 
though one who is pardoned has therefore no 
right to expect that the physical evils resulting 
from his transgression will be counteracted by 
his being subsequently forgiven, yet he may 
hope, both from what has now been said and 
from common experience, that these evils will 
be very much diminished, will lose the terror 
of punishment, and contribute to his good. Such 
is the case exactly with bodily death. ' 

The same truth is taught in the Bible, not 
indeed in a scientific manner, which would be 
unintelligible to men at large, but in the popular 
manner, in which it should always be taught. 
(1) The Bible never says that Christ has entirely 
removed the physical evils which naturally re- 
sult from sin. (2) When the sacred writers say 
that Christ suffered punishment for us, they mean 
principally the positive punishment, from which 
he has liberated us by his sufferings and death. 
Vide s. 87, No. 2. They also teach, (3) That 
one who trusts in Christ can take courage, can 
love God and confide in him without dreading 
his anger, and without distressing himself in 
view of his past guilt, which is now forgiven 
him for the sake of Christ. The remission of 
the moral punishments which naturally flow 
from sin is thus set forth in a manner which 
ought to be followed by the public teacher. 
Vide s. 109, ad finem. (4) But the terms par- 
don and for giveness of sin are frequently used in 
the New Testament in a wider sense, compre- 
hending all the divine favours which the par- 
doned receive from God ; they denote the whole 
amount of the blessedness — the salvation — which 
the pardoned enjoy. Vide s. 109, Note. If, 
therefore, (5) the natural physical consequences 
of past sins are not removed, they still lose their 
severity ; they are rendered mild and in many 



respects beneficial ; they are vastly overbalanced 
by the various blessings bestowed, and thus 
cease, in their actual effects, to be punishments. 
The holy scriptures, therefore, declare with 
truth, that the blood of Christ atones for all sins. 
Cf. the programm of Noesselt, above cited. 

Note. — Theologians have been divided on the 
question, whether the apostles held that the sins 
committed before Christ, or during the Old-Tes- 
tament dispensation, were forgiven by God on 
account of the atonement to be afterwards made. 
Doederlein and others take the negative side. 
They say that the a^fcfij TipoysyovoTtov a/.iapT'-/j 1 u.a- 
?qj/, Rom. iii. 25, may denote the remission of 
the sins which the Jews and Gentiles of that 
age had committed before their conversion to 
Christianity. The rtapapuans zrtL ?y 7tpu>-ty 
bioJ^-qxri, Heb. ix. 15, may be understood in the 
same way, or may denote the sins which were 
irremissible during the Old-Testament dispensa- 
tion. Vide Vier. 9. But the context of this pas- 
sage is more favourable to the common interpre- 
tation. 

Besides, the affirmative of this question is 
supported, (1) By the whole analogy of scrip- 
ture. The Jews of that age agree with Christ 
and the apostles in teaching that men of the 
earliest times hoped for the Messiah — that the 
divine ordinances of the former dispensation re- 
ferred to him, and pointed him out — and that all 
the pious of antiquity confided in him. Vide 
John, viii. 56; Luke, x. 24; 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 
Cf. s. 90. (2) By the passage, Heb. ix. 26. 
where this doctrine is plainly implied. " God 
appointed that Christ should suffer and die for 
all sins, and once for all. Otherwise, it would 
have been necessary that he should suffer more 
than once (jto'k'kdxii) from the beginning of the 
world ; since there were always sinners in the 
world." This plainly involves the sentiment 
that Christ died for the men who lived before 
him. The opinion of Lceffier and other modern 
writers, that pardon through the death of Christ 
related only to the new converts from Judaism 
and heathenism is entirely false and contradic- 
tory to the New Testament. Vide Gal. iii. 21, 
seq.; Romans, i. 18, seq., coll. 1 Thess. i. 10; 
John, iii. 13 — 16; Romans, v. 18, 19; and 
especially 1 John, ii. 1, 2. 

(2) The other attribute of the atoning death 
of Christ is, its permanent and perfect validity, 
(perennitas, perennis valor meriti Christi.) 

This doctrine is held in opposition to those 
who believe that the expiatory sacrifice of 
Christ is not valid and sufficient for the atone 
ment of some particular sins, and who therefore 
seek for other means of obtaining pardon, such 
as penances and satisfactions. This opinion 
has not only prevailed in modern times, espe- 
cially since the middle ages, throughout the 
whole body of the Romish church, but former- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 395 



ly, though in different forms, even in the times 
of the apostles, among Jews and Gentiles. Vide 
e. 103, No. I. Paul therefore shews, especially 
in his epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ had 
sacrificed himself once for all (anal;) for all sins, j 
and that now no more sacrifices, penances, and I 
expiations are necessary for men. Heb. vii. 
27, Tovto £7toir t 6£v e<pd7toJz, scivrov avsviyxa$. 
Heb. ix. 25, 26 — 28, " He appeared at the close 
of this age, artaf f'tj a^it-qaiv afiaptlaf and then 
aria! 7tpo6£V£%'Srsi$ stj to 7to%hc>v dvsvsyxsiv afxap- 
tla$. So also, x. 14, /xia rtpoatyopu teteteiioxsv 
£t{ fo b*iY]V£X6$ toiis wyio.^ojxhov$. Accord- 
ingly, Christ is said, ix. 11, by his once enter- 
ing into the heavens, to have procured eternal 
i edemption, (aiavCav hvtpcoOLv.') 

SECTION CXII 

OF THE INFLUENCE WHICH THE RESURRECTION OF 
CHRIST, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT EXALTATION AND 
INTERCESSION, HAVE UPON OUR FORGIVENESS OR 
JUSTIFICATION. 

It was observed (s. 110, ad finem) that the 
New Testament points to three particulars in 
the justification procured for us by Christ. The 
first of these, the death of Christ, was consider- 
ed, s. 111. We come now to treat of the two 
remaining particulars. 

I The Influence of the Resurrection and Exaltation 
of Christ upon our Justification. 

We have before examined (s. 37) what is 
uniformly taught in the Bible respecting the re- 
surrection of Christ, and the great importance 
of this event, and all this is here presupposed. 
The resurrection of Christ is mentioned, in con- 
nexion with our justification, with the most dis- 
tinctness in the two following texts — viz., 2 Cor. 
v. 15, " Christians should not live for their own 
pleasure (savtcp £*jfv)* Dut f° r tne honour of 
Christ, and according to his will, tip vrtep <wtuv 
arto^avovti xal ^yep^^t^' (sc. vrtep avtuv) ', and 
Rom. iv. 25, " He died (according to the divine 
purpose) 8ia td napaTita/xata qfiHv, ^yip^rrj 
Sta tvv 8 1 x a i odvvrj v ^^©v." 

What is meant by his being raised for our 
justification must be gathered from other pas- 
sages. 1 Pet. i. 3, " God has made us, by 
means of Christianity, reformed men (born 
again), that w r e might cherish a firm hope (ttj 
i%7tC8a £w<mv, sc. of future happiness, ver. 4), 
through the resurrection of Christ. 1 Pet. i. 21, 
" God has raised Christ and rewarded him with 
glory (the state of exaltation in the heavens), 
that he — the risen and glorified Christ — might 
be your confidence and hope in God" — i. e., that 
you should consider him as the person to whom 
al jne you are indebted for the confidence which 
y-u now are enabled to repose in God. 1 Cor. 
xv. 17, "If Christ were not risen, then the con- 



fidence (jtCatii) which you feel in him would 
be vain; stt iatk iv duap-ruuj vft&v" — i. e., you 
could not be certain of that forgiveness which 
you now hope to obtain from God through 
Christ. Cf. Rom. viii. 34. 

From these passages taken together we can 
easily gather the relation and connexion in 
which the resurrection and exaltation of Christ 
stand to our justification and forgiveness. The 
resurrection of Christ, then, cannot be consider- 
ed to have any desert in itself alone, nor can it 
be supposed, separately considered, to have freed 
us from the punishment of sin. But, according 
to the Bible, the resurrection of Christ and his 
subsequent reward in heaven give attestation 
and confirmation to all that he taught and suf- 
fered. For since God raised and rewarded 
Christ, we must conclude that He fully ap- 
proved of everything which Jesus taught and 
performed — and that Christ must have accom- 
plished His designs. Did Christ suffer and 
die with the intention of liberating us from the 
punishment of sin, we may be sure, since his 
resurrection and exaltation, that he fully attain- 
ed this object, and that we can now through him 
lay claim to reward and eternal happiness. This 
is what Peter means by rftWt$ xaL h.Ttic qpciv. 
In the passage cited from 1 Cor., Paul means to 
say, that if Christ were not risen, we might be 
led to suspect that he had not performed what 
he promised and undertook to perform. 

We are now prepared to understand the mean- 
ing of the declaration in the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, r t ysp^r f ftf 8ixaioavvr l v r^uiv — viz., in order 
to afford us certainty of our forgiveness, of which 
we could have no certainty if Christ had re- 
mained in the grave. Vide Acts, xiii. 37, 38. 
Accordingly, the resurrection and exaltation 
(Sofa, as Peter has it), of Christ are the con- 
firmation and assurance of our justification, 
while the sufferings and death of Christ are pro- 
perly the procuring cause of it. 

II. The Influence of the Intercession of Christ upon 
our Justification. 

(1) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. 
Many theologians, and some of the ecclesias- 
tical fathers, represent intercession as a conti- 
nued external action of Christ, different from 
his atonement, by which blessings are not only 
imparted to us, but likewise procured for us. 
Among the fathers who held this opinion were 
Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory the Great, 
Paulus of Aquilia, and others; among modern 
theologians, Calvin, and of the Lutheran church, 
, Chemnitz, Baumo-arten, and others. These 
I writers regard the intercession of Christ as a 
! distinct" work performed by him in his state ol 
exaltation in heaven. They have very different 
conceptions, however, respecting the manner of 
this work, some of which are very gross. Many 



396 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



of them contended for an intercessio verhalis — 
e. g., Cyprian and Augustine; and their opi- 
nion was adopted in the Romish church. Ac- 
cordingly, Luther renders htvyxdvu, Heb. vii. 
25, " Er bittetfiXr s/e," (he prays for them.) So 
^etavius, Hollaz, Quenstedt, and many others, 
among the Lutherans. They also differ widely 
*rom one another respecting the nature, object, 
and continuance of this intercession. Some 
consider it as belonging to the sacerdotal office, 
in which case the comparison is drawn from 
the Jewish high priest in the Epistle to the He- 
brews. Nothing definite upon the subject ap- 
pears in the symbols, except in the Augsburg 
Confession; and even there no distinct expla- 
nation is given. 

Another theory, which entirely divests the 
subject of its material dress, and which has 
therefore been more generally approved in mo- 
dern times, was first distinctly stated by Philip 
Limborch, the Arminian theologian, and by 
Musseus in the seventeenth century. They 
consider the intercession of Christ to be merely 
the relation in which he, in his state of exalta- 
tion, stands to sinners, as their Redeemer, and 
not as a continued action, by which he still pro- 
motes the welfare of men, and by which salva- 
tion is still procured for them. The same opi- 
nion is found in Ballhorn's dissertation, Be in- 
tercessione Christi sacerdotali, (among Walch's 
Vorsitze;) Gottingen, 1774. This opinion, 
however, does not exactly correspond with the 
doctrine of the Bible. 

(2) Explanation of the texts relating to this 
subject, and an elucidation of the ideas contained 
in them. These texts are — 

(a) 1 John, ii. 1. "When a Christian has 
committed sin, (let him not despair of pardon, 
but encourage himself with the thought, that) 
we have Ttapdxhytov rtpoj tbv rtatipa, in 
Jesus, the righteous." Here rtwpdx%^o% is, pa- 
tronus, advocate, defender, (Filrsprecher, Luther.) 
This name is given by Philo to the ministers 
and favourites at court, who promise to any one 
the favour of the king; and also to the high 
priest, the expiator of the people. Vide Pro- 
gram m, Be Christo et Spiritu Sancto paracletis, 
in " Scripta varii argumenti," Num. iv. In 
this respect it is that Christ, is called nopaxfcjf- 
tfoj. He is our expiator, Ihacs/xbg rtspi afiaptiuv, 
ver. 2. Accordingly, the meaning of this pas- 
sage is, that since Christ is exalted to heaven, 
and while he continues there, we may be firmly 
convinced that God will be gracious to us, and 
for Christ's sake will remit the punishment of 
our sins; and that Christ, in his state of exalta- 
tion, continues without intermission his cares 
for the welfare of men. 

(b) Rom. viii. 34. Here Paul says, " No one 
can condemn (xataxpivsiv) the friends of God, 
(Christians.) They are exempt from punish- 



ment. Christ died for them; and indeed, (what 
might add to their comfort,) had risen again, 
was seated on the right hand of God, 6? xal iv 
■tvyxdvsi, vrthp rjpuv, (vertritt uns, Luther.) 'Ev- 
tvyxdvscv, joined with the dative, means occur- 
rere alicui ; then, adire, convenire aliquem, Acts, 
xxv. 24; joined with xatd (?lvo$), accusare, 
Rom. xi. 2; with vrtkp (tlvoi), medium se alte- 
rius causa inlerponere, to interpose in behalf of 
one, to intercede for him; as here, intercedere 
pro aliquo, deprecari, causam alicujus agere. 
From this text it does not appear that this in- 
tercession was performed by words. The prin- 
cipal idea is, " Christ is now, as it w r ere, our 
patron with God ; his being with God in hea- 
ven gives us the consoling assurance that 
through him we are for ever reconciled with 
God and freed from the punishment of sin ; and 
that, as the advocate and patron of the pious, 
Christ still prosecutes in heaven his labours for 
their welfare." 

(c) Heb. vii. 25, seq. Here the case is the 
same. " Christ (being an eternal high priest) 
can for ever bless (au>£siv sis *o Ttwti%i{) all 
those who seek the favour of God through his 
mediation, since he ever lives ftj -to ivtvyxd- 
vt*w" — i. e., since Christ ever lives with God 
in heaven we can always be sure of forgiveness 
and of every divine blessing; for he is not in 
heaven in vain, but even there continues to be 
engaged for our welfare. The phrase intercessic 
sacerdotalis is taken from this passage; for the 
figure here, as in the whole chapter, is borrowed 
from the Jewish high priest, who on the great 
day of atonement entered into the most holy 
place and made expiation for the sins of the 
people, (pro populo intercedebat apud Beum.} 
He did not do this, however, by words (he spake 
no word, vide Ex. xxviii. and Lev. xvii.), but 
by action — namely, by offering the blood of the 
victim. The object of this comparison, then, 
is to shew that Christ performs with God in 
the heavenly world what the Jewish high priest 
did yearly for the people upon the earth. It re- 
fers, then, both to the permanent validity of the 
atonement of Christ, and to his continued la- 
bours in heaven for the salvation of men. Re- 
specting this figure, cf. Morus, p. 155, seq. 

(d) Heb. ix. 24 — a parallel passage, which 
confirms the above explanation. " Christ did 
not enter into an earthly temple, like the Jewish 
high priest, but into heaven itself, vvv e/xtyavbti- 
S-yjvao t'u rtpoaJmi^ ®sov vrtsp jj^uv" — the very 
phrase applied to the high priest when he pre- 
sented to God, in the temple, the blood of atone- 
ment for the people. It means, therefore, "in 
order to .procure for us a firm assurance of being 
expiated, or of forgiveness of our sins, and of 
the enjoyment of all the spiritual blessings con- 
nected with forgiveness." 

The intercession of Christ before God in the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 397 



heavenly world denotes, then, both the lasting 
and perfect validity and efficacy of his atone- 
ment, of which we obtain consoling assurance by 
Lis abiding with God in his state of exaltation, 
and also the continued wakeful care which Jesus 
Christ exercises in heaven over his followers on 
the earth. In short, the intercession of Christ 
is one of the chief employments which Christ 
prosecutes in heaven in his state of exaltation, 
as the King and Patron of men, and especially 
of the Christian church, and its individual mem- 
bers ; s. 98. He is our Paracletus and Patron, 
therefore, not merely in respect to what he for- 
merly did for men while upon the earth, but also 
in respect to the efforts which he still continues 
to make for our welfare. 

The Bible nowhere teaches that this interces- 
sion consists in words. But considering that 
Christ must still be regarded as a man, though 
in heaven, there is no objection to representing 
the thing under the figure of actual intercession. 
In brief, Christ does for us all and more than 
could be done among men through verbal inter- 
cession, or other kinds of interposition, by a 
powerful human advocate. The passage, Heb. 
xii. 24, may here be compared: "The blood of 
Christ speaks better (for us) than the blood of 
Abel." The blood of Abel cried to God for 
vengeance upon Cain. The death of Christ 
moves God, not to punish, but to bless and for- 
give. 

SECTION CXIII. 

THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF PARDON OR JUSTIFI- 
CATION THROUGH CHRIST, AS AN UNIVERSAL AND 
UNMERITED FAVOUR OF GOD. 

I. The Universality of this Benefit. 

It is universal as the atonement itself. Vide 
s. Ill, II. If the atonement extends to the 
whole human race, justification must also be 
universal — i. e., all must be able to obtain the 
actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness 
on account of the atonement of Christ. But in 
order to obviate mistakes, some points may re- 
quire explanation. Justification, then, is uni- 
versal, 

(1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned. 

Ml men, according to the Bible, may partake 
of this benefit. It was designed for all. Vide 
especially Rom. iii. 23; v. 15; s. Ill, in oppo- 
sition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed, 
however, conditionally ; certain conditions are 
prescribed which are indispensable. Those who 
do not comply with these conditions are excluded 
from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification 
and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in 
effect {actu), and this solely through the fault of 
men.* 

• [This is very conveniently expressed by the 



Another conclusion from the universality of 
justification is, that every one may be sure of 
his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must 
not be founded upon inward feelings, which are 
frequently deceptive, but upon an actual com- 
pliance with the conditions on which God will 
forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the 
signs of true faith, of sincere love to God and 
Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous, 
Christian disposition, he is justified. Romans, 
viii. 16, " The holy, Christian temper (rcvevpa) 
wrought in us by God gives us the clearest and 
surest proof that we are the children of God." 
1 John, iii. 7 ; 2 Peter, i. 9, 10. This certainty 
is in the highest degree necessary to our tran- 
quillity and happiness; 1 Tim. i. 16; 1 Cor. vi. 
11; 1 John, v. 18—20. 

(2) In respect to sins and the punishment of 
sin. 

(a) As to sins ,• the position that all sins with- 
out exception are forgiven for Christ's sake is 
proved partly from the power and efficacy of 
the atonement of Christ, which is extended to 
all sins, (vide s. Ill, and the texts there cited ;) 
and partly from the texts which promise forgive- 
ness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest, 
to those who comply with the prescribed condi- 
tions of pardon; Ezekiel, xviii. 21, 22; Psalm, 
ciii. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; Ephes. ii. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 
15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be 
regarded as an exception. Vide s. 84. 

(b) As to the punishment of sin, the answer 
to the question, whether the pardoned are 
exempt from all the punishments of sin, whe- 
ther, therefore, justification is plena et perfecta, 
may be learned from s. Ill, II. The natural and 
physical evils which result from past sins, in- 
deed, remain, but they are mitigated and render- 
ed more tolerable, and are divested of the terror 
of punishment by the cessation of the moral 
evils which result from sin, which takes place 
in consequence of the entirely different relation 
in which men stand to God after they are once 
pardoned. The positive punishments of sin are 
entirely removed, and man receives even here 
the expectation of positive divine rewards, and 
of the full enjoyment of them in the life to come. 

(c) In respect to time and lasting continuance. 
First. — The scriptures uniformly teach that 

forgiveness extends through the whole life of 
man. He may receive pardon at any time, 
while life continues, so soon as he fulfils the re- 
quisite conditions of forgiveness. This last 
clause should be carefully and expressly annex- 
ed, in order to preserve men from security and 

terms objective and subjective justification. Objec- 
tive justification is the act of God, by which he prof- 
fers pardon to all through Christ ; subjective is the 
act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely 
offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the 
latter not.— Tr.] 

2L 



398 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



carelessness in sin. Formerly many teachers, 
especially in the Lutheran church, were incau- 
tious in the use of language on this subject. 
They used the general phrases, the door of mercy 
stands ever open ; man can obtain avour (for- 
giveness) in the last moment of life, without suit- 
able explanation and cautious limitation. But 
while it is important, on the one hand, to shew 
that God is indeed ever ready to forgive, it 
ought, on the other hand, to be observed, that 
man is not always capable of forgiveness; that 
forgiveness is necessarily connected with repent- 
ance, as an indispensable condition, (not imply- 
ing, by any means, that repentance is the pro- 
curing-cause of forgiveness;) that repentance 
and holiness are important things, which cannot 
be accomplished in a few moments, and that 
therefore it is extremely dangerous to delay 
them to the end of life, especially considering 
that we do not know that we shall then have 
our reason, or that we shall not die suddenly. 
The sincere Christian teacher will render such 
considerations as impressive as possible, in 
order to disturb security in sin. He should 
guard, however, with equal caution, against the 
mistake of those who represent repentance and 
noliness as the meritorious ground of forgiveness. 

The frequent perversion of the doctrine of 
justification gave rise, at the end of the seven- 
teenth and commencement of the eighteenth 
century, to the terministic controversy. Joh. 
Ge. Bose, a deacon at Sorau, in endeavouring 
to avoid one extreme fell into another. He held 
that God did not continue to forgive, even to 
the last, such persons as he foresaw would 
harden themselves in impenitence, but that he 
established a limit of grace, (terminum gratise 
sive salutis peremptorium,) to which, and no fur- 
ther, he would afford them grace for repentance. 
He appealed to the texts which speak of God 
as hardening or rejecting men, some of which 
have no reference to conversion and forgiveness, 
and some of which are erroneously explained by 
him. Vide s. 85. Ad Rechenberg, at Leipsic, 
and others, assented to this opinion, though 
with the best intentions. .But Ittig, Fecht, 
Neumann, and many others, opposed this opi- 
nion, and wrote against the work of Bose, 
"Terminus peremptorius salutis humanae," and 
against Rechenberg. They were in the right. 
This opinion is not taught in the holy scriptures, 
and is calculated to lead the doubting and anx- 
ious to despair, and to place them, as many sor- 
rowful examples teach, in the most perilous 
condition, both as to soul and body, especially 
on the bed of death. 

The doctrine that repentance and holiness are 
the meritorious ground of salvation would have 
equally terrible consequences. According to 
this doctrine, we should be compelled to deny 
all hope of salvation to one who had lived an 



impenitent sinner till the last part of his life ; 
which the Bible never does, and which is in 
itself cruel. The conscience even of the good 
man must say to him on his death-bed, that his 
imperfect virtues are insufficient to merit heaven. 
In neither of these instances, then, would there 
be any consolation ; but despair would be the re- 
sult of this doctrine in both. 

Secondly. If one who has obtained the forgive- 
ness of his sins is guilty of new transgressions, 
he forfeits the blessing of forgiveness, and all 
its salutary consequences ; and by new offences 
incurs new punishments, which, after his fall, 
are justly more severe and intolerable than be- 
fore. Still it cannot be said, as it has been said 
by some, that in case of apostasy God considers 
the sins once forgiven at the time of repent- 
ance as not forgiven, and that he still imputes 
them to the transgressor. There is no reason for 
this supposition ; and such is not the case in hu- 
man courts. The Bible uses the terms, sins are 
Hotted out, no more remembered, Ezekiel, xviii. 
22; xxxiii. 16; Psalm ciii. 11, 12. So Paul 
says, (Rom. xi. 29,) that God will never recal 
or take back the gifts which he has promised 
and bestowed, (a/xsta/xsXrta ^apttf/xcr'a.) Vide 
Wernsdorf 's Dissertation on this subject in Coll. 
Dissertat. t. i. p. 607, seq. 

Thirdly. Even those who after their reforma- 
tion and the bestowment of forgiveness fall away 
and transgress anew, may again obtain the for- 
giveness of their sins as soon as they repent 
and believe in Christ. So the Bible everywhere 
teaches, both in the Old and New Testament; 
Ezek. xxxiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. v. 9. Christ com- 
mands us to be forgiving to our neighbour who 
has wronged us, since in this we shall resemble 
God, who is easily reconciled, and who willingly 
forgives sin. Therefore the precept, Matthew, 
xviii. 21, 22, is applicable to God. This posi- 
tion is confirmed by the examples of many 
apostates in the Bible, who, after the commis- 
sion of great offences, were again received into 
favour — e. g., David, 2 Samuel, xii. ; Peter, 
Matt, xxvi., &c. The condition of repentance 
and faith, however, is indispensable. Vide Ps. 
li. ; Morus, p. 211, seq. 

But from the earliest ages Christians have en- 
tertained various erroneous opinions upon this 
subject. The opinion prevailed, even during the 
earliest ages, that great sins committed after bap- 
tism (by which ordinance the Christian was sup- 
posed to receive the remission of sin) could not 
be pardoned without great difficulty, if indeed at 
all, on which account many delayed baptism till 
the end of life. 

The excommunication of great offenders had 
been common among Christians from the time of 
the apostles, (as it was among the Jews, which 
indeed at that time was necessary.) But now, 
in the second and third centuries, Montanus, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 399 



Novatian, and many others, began to exercise 
this prerogative very severely, and in order to 
invest it with more terror, insisted that the ex- 
communicated should never be restored, in op- 
position to those who were too lenient in re-ad- 
mitting them. Montanus, however, declared 
expressly that they might still obtain forgiveness 
from God, (Tertullian,) and even Novatian was 
willing to leave it undetermined how God would 
deal with them. 

But afterwards, some particular teachers and 
some whole sects maintained that one who is 
excluded from the Christian church is excluded 
from the favour of God and placed beyond the 
reach of pardon. This opinion prevailed exten- J 
sively in the Romish church. It was based on I 
the principle, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In op- 
position to this error, the ancient creeds pre- 
scribed the declaration Credo remissionem pecca- J 
torum. This same error is controverted in the \ 
Augsburg Confession, Art. 13. The ancient 
apostolic church was far removed from such an 
opinion. In the second epistle to the Corin- 
thians, Paul advises that the incestuous person 
whom he had required to be excommunicated 
in his first epistle should now be restored, since 
he had repented of his crime, and had put away 
his offence. And even there, where he advises 
his excommunication, and even undertakes to j 
punish him, 1 Cor. v. 5, he will by no means 
have him excluded on this account from the fa- 
vour of God, but declares, on the contrary, that 
he inflicts punishment with the very intention 
of saving his soul, iva rtvevjAa eu^y iv ypepq 
xvpiov. 

XL Justification or Forgiveness is an unmerited 
Divine Favour. 

That man can merit the divine favour and 
forgiveness by good works or virtues is an old 
mistake, which continues to be widely preva- 
lent, and is ever appearing again in some new 
form. Against this mistake, which prevailed 
among the Jews and the Christian converts 
from Judaism, the apostles laboured incessantly, 
in entire accordance with that reasonable decla- ; 
Tation of Jesus, Luke, xvii. 10, " When we have 
done everything which we are bound to do, (al- 
though no one can ever pretend that he has,) we ! 
are still servants who have deserved nothing, 
(a^pscot,) for we have done only our duty." All 
our good works do not confer favour upon God, 
or lay him under obligation. The observance 
of his laws is our duty, and tends to oar own ; 
good merely. 

In Rom. iii. Paul particularly illustrates this ; 
doctrine. Ver. 24, he says, "through Christ 
we are justified, Scopsav, ty ^apm ©eov" — i. e., 
from mere free grace, which we have not de- 
served, and which we cannot repay. Vide 
Matt. x. 8. Paul therefore calls justification, 



Swpov ®eov, Ephes. ii. 8. But the Jews and the 
Christian converts from Judaism in that age 
were particularly inclined to the opinion that 
the external observance of the divine law, espe- 
cially of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the most 
perfect of any, was meritorious, and more than 
anything else procured forgiveness from God. 
This mistake is controverted by Paul in his 
Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. He 
shews that man is justified by God, ovx i| spymv 
vofwv, or gcapt$ tpycoi/ vofiov, (not because he ob- 
serves the law, Tit. iii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9;) Rom. 
iii. 20, 21, 28, ch. vi.; Gal. ii. 16—21, seq. 
No ( uo? has frequently indeed in these chapters a 
special reference to the divine law given by 
Moses, because this was regarded by the Jews 
as the most perfect. But it is by no means to 
be limited to this sense. Paul affirms the same 
in respect to obedience to all the divine precepts, 
since this obedience is always imperfect, Rom. 
iii. 28, vi. 14; Gal. iii. 17, 29, 23; and ol vxd 
vo/xov are not merely the Jews, but all who sub- 
ject themselves to the divine laws, thinking to 
merit the favour of God by obedience. The 
Jews considered their observance of the law as 
meritorious, and many Christians hoped to be 
justified on the same ground. Paul opposes 
this opinion, and proves that Christians cannot 
consider obedience as the meritorious ground 
of justification, for which they are indebted to 
Christ alone. But what Paul says respecting 
works, applies equally, in his opinion, to obe- 
dience to all laws, to works in general, even to 
Christian works. He does not speak exclusive- 
ly of the law given by Moses ; his positions are 
general, applying equally to all the laws of 
God, whether given by Moses, by Christ, or in 
any other manner. Vide Progr. ad Rom. vii. 
21, in Scripta Varii argumenti, No. xii. Our 
obedience to the divine law is not, and cannot 
be, in itself meritorious. That this is a general 
doctrine is perfectly clear from Rom. iv. — e. g., 
ver. 4, " He that works for hire (ipya^tcr^a*, 1 
Thess. ii. 9, seq.) receives his wages, not 
through the grace of him for whom he labours, 
(as we all receive pardon from God,) but from 
the obligation of his employer to recompense 
him." Now if we receive the reward through 
grace, our works contribute nothing to this end, 
— they are not the meritorious ground of our 
pardon. 

Paul also employs the argument, that if we 
by our obedience to the law could merit pardon, 
the atonement of Christ would be entirely in 
vain. The fact that we do not obtain forgive- 
ness in this way renders the atonement neces 
sary, Gal. ii. 21. 

But why is this doctrine taught in the holy 
scriptures? If God made our works of legal 
obedience the measure by which he bestowed 
pardon and reward, we ttiould have but a uoor 



400 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



prospect. For how imperfect is our obedience, 
especially during the early stages of the Chris- 
tian life ! How defective is it, even in the best 
and most advanced Christians ! The greater 
advances a man makes in holiness and in Chris- 
tianity, the more he sees and feels his imperfec- 
tion. What feeble hope would the good man 
then have, if his own works (which his con- 
science pronounces very imperfect) should be 
the procuring cause of his pardon ! The Chris- 
tian teacher who inculcates such an opinion 
knows not what he does. Melancthon ex- 
pressed this very well in the Augsburg Con- 
fession, Art. 4. 

For a further consideration of this subject, 
and an account of the controversies respecting 
it with the Romish church, vide infra, s. 124, 
125. 

SECTION CXIV. 

QF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE NA- 
TURE AND MANNER OF THE ATONEMENT OF 
CHRIST; AND A NOTICE OF SOME OF THE MOST 
IMPORTANT WORKS ON ATONEMENT AND JUSTI- 
FICATION. 

The common word authorized by ecclesiasti- 
cal usage for denoting the atonement is satisfac- 
tio (Germ. Genugthuung.) This word is not 
indeed found in the Bible, but is in itself unob- 
jectionable, taken in the large sense in which 
it was formerly understood in the church, and 
freed from the false opinions sometimes con- 
nected with it in later times. This word was 
originally a judicial term, and was applied for 
the first time (with many more of a similar na- 
ture) by Tertullian, who was himself a jurist, 
to the atonement of Christ. " Christus peccata 
hominum, omni satisfactions habitu expiavit" 
De patientia, c. 10. It has since been retained 
in the Latin church, though it occurs but seldom 
in the Latin fathers, and did not become gene- 
ral until the time of the schoolmen, and espe- 
cially of Anselmus. 

The words satisfacere and satisfadio relate 
originally to matters of debt, — the payment of 
debt, debiti solutio. They are then applied figu- 
ratively to other things, which have, or are sup- 
posed to have, some resemblance to debt. Hence 
we find them used in the following senses — 
viz., to discharge a debt for any one {satisfacere 
pro aliquo debitor e), to make him content, to com- 
ply with his wishes, to fulfil his desire, to do what 
he was bound to perform, to beg him off and ob- 
tain his pardon. Hence the phrases satisfacere 
officio, muneri, expectationi, promissis ,• satisfacere 
9opulo (to comply with its wishes), Ixavbv 
rtoisiv, Mark, xv. 15; accipere satisfactionem, 
(to accept the payment or apology offered, or 
the request for pardon.) Satisfacere often de- 
notes not merely payment with money, (though 



this is the ground of this usage,) but every other 
mode of discharging debt or obligation. 

Now when Tertullian and other ancient 
writers found the words %v-ipov and avtl%vtpov 
applied in the Bible to the atonement of Christ, 
(s. 106,) they were very naturally led to adopt 
the word sati&factio. The two former words 
properly denote a ransom, pretium redemptionis. 
These writers retained the figure, and compared 
the unhappy, sinful condition of man, sometimes 
with captivity, sometimes with debt, both of 
which comparisons are scriptural. Sins are fre- 
quently called in the Bible o-j^a^uara. From 
these Christ freed men by his death. This death 
of Christ was therefore compared with the sum 
which is paid as ransom for captives or debtors, 
to liberate them from captivity or release them 
from debt. At first this was considered only 
as a figurative mode of speech, denoting that 
God was by this means satisfied or appeased. 
But afterwards this phraseology came to be un- 
derstood literally, and many hypotheses disho- 
nourable to God were suggested in explanation 
of this idea. 

But, as Morus has justly observed, there is 
no injury to be apprehended from retaining this 
word, which is now authorized by ecclesiastical 
usage, if it is only so explained as to convey the 
same meaning as Xvtpov, arto^fpcotfij, and simi- 
lar scriptural terms. The phrase, Christ has 
made satisfaction for us, should therefore be ex- 
plained to mean, that Christ by his death has 
procured for us from God perfect forgiveness 
and the remission of sins ; so that now we have 
no punishment to fear, but rather blessings to 
expect. 

The following are some of the principal me- 
thods of explaining this subject, and the eccle- 
siastical theories respecting it. 

(1) During the first two centuries most of the 
ecclesiastical fathers adhered, in a great mea- 
sure, to the simplicity of the scriptural repre- 
sentation of this subject, and attempted no defi- 
nite explanation of the manner of the atonement 
beyond what is given in the scriptures, and in 
doing this, made use for the most part of scrip- 
tural phraseology. They represented the death 
of Jesus as a sacrifice. 

But a theory, some traces of which had ap- 
peared even during the second century, became 
prominent during the third and fourth centuries, 
and continued a long time the prevailing theory 
among the learned in the Greek and Latin 
churches. The advocates of this theory took 
the word Kvtpoco in its primary and literal sense, 
denoting release from captivity or slavery by 
the payment of a ransom, (%vtpov, s. 106.) 
With this they associated the idea of the power 
and dominion of Satan over the whole human 
race, in a sense not warranted by the Bible 
They referred to the texts affirming that Christ 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 401 



freed us from the power of the devil. Thus 
originated the following theory : — Ever after the 
fall the devil had the whole human race in his 
power ; he ruled over mety'like a tyrant over his 
vassals, and employed them for his own purposes. 
Thus far they had the support of the Bible. But 
here they began to philosophize beyond what 
is written. From this captivity God might in- 
deed have rescued men by the exercise of his om- 
nipotence; but he vjas restrained by his justice 
from doing this with violence. He therefore 
offered Satan a ransom, in consideration of which 
he should release mankind. This ransom was 
the death of Christ, (as a divine being.) In 
accordance with this theory, Origen interpreted 
the text, Matt. xx. 28, "He gave his life a ransom 
for men," as denoting the ransom paid to the 
devil, not to God. Satan had consented to the 
compact ; but he wished fraudulently to retain 
Jesus, whom he considered only as the best and 
most pious man under his own power, and so slew 
this innocent being. He was now, therefore, 
justly compelled to liberate the human race. 

This theory was first adopted by the Grecian 
church, and especially by Origen, (Comm. in 
Matt. xx. et alibi,) through whose influence it 
became prevalent, and was adopted at length 
by Basilius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of 
Nazianzen, Nestorius, and others. From the 
Greeks it was communicated to the Latins, 
among whom it was first distinctly held by Am- 
brosius, and afterwards by Augustine, through 
whose influence it was rendered almost univer- 
sal in the Latin church. In this church they 
endeavoured to perfect the theory. Satan, they 
added, was deceived in the transaction; for 
taking Jesus to be a mere man, and not know- 
ing that he was also the Son of God, he was not 
able to retain even him, after he had slain him. 
And it was necessary for Christ to assume a 
human body in order to deceive the devil, as 
fishes are caught by baits. This view occurs 
frequently in the writings of Leo the Great, in 
the fifth century. Cf. Sernler, Geschichte der 
Glaubenslehre, prefixed to Baumgarten's "Po- 
lemik ;" Doederlein, Diss, de redemptione a po- 
testate diaboli, in his "Opuscula;" and Cotta, 
Hist, doctrince de redemptione sanguine Christi 
facta, in his edition of Gerhard's " Loci Theo- 
logici," prefixed to th. 4. 

So prevalent was this theory in the Latin 
church before the twelfth century, that Abelard 
declares, " Omnes doctores nostri post apostolos, 
in hoc conveniunt ,•" and Bemhard of Clairvaux 
was so firmly persuaded of its truth as to de- 
clare that Abelard, who held that the devil never 
possessed, in a literal sense, such power as was 
ascribed to him, ought rather to be chastised 
with rods than reasoned with. 

But after the twelfth century this theory gra- 
dually lost ground, through the influence, prin- 
51 



cipally, of the schoolmen who lived after the age 
of Anselmus and Abelard ; and another theory 
was substituted in its place. Vide No. 2. 
Peter of Lombardy, however, still continued 
more inclined to the ancient theory. In the 
Greek church, too, this hypothesis was gradu- 
ally abandoned, and was opposed even earlier 
than in the Latin church. John of Damascus 
attacked it as early as the eighth century, and 
maintained (De fid. Orthod. 1. 3) that Christ 
brought his blood, which was shed as a ransom, 
not to the devil, but to God, in order to deliver 
men from the divine punishments. So the scrip- 
tures, « He offered himself to God for us, a spot- 
less victim." This is implied in the whole 
scriptural idea of sacrifices, which were offered 
only to God. 

■(2) The other theory, of which also some 
traces appear in the early ages, is the following. 
Proceeding on the idea of debt, the authors of' 
this theory maintained that the relation of all 
sinful men to God is the same as that of a debtor 
to his creditors. We find it distinctly said, as 
early as the fourth century, that Christ paid 
what we should have paid, or what we owed. 
The idea of sacrifice and of his offering up him- 
self was still associated with this. The learned 
now began to carry out the former idea, at first, 
indeed, in a manner not inconsistent with the 
scriptures. The debt was sin, and could not be 
cancelled, or the punishment remitted, unless 
satisfaction or payment were made. Since men 
were unable to do this of themselves, Christ 
did it for them ; and God accepted the ransom, 
(the death of Christ,) and forgave men, as if 
they themselves had made satisfaction. 

We find very clear traces of this theory as 
early as the fourth century in the writings of 
Athanasius, of the Grecian church ; and still 
more clear, in the writings of John of Damas- 
cus, who expressly rejected the theory stated in 
No. 1. At the same period, in the Latin church, 
we find indications of the same theory in the 
writings of Hilarius of Poictiers, (Com. in Ps. 
liii.) But the schoolmen of the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries gave this theory a greater cur- 
rency than it had had before, and spun it out to 
a finer subtilty. They attempted to determine 
the idea of atonement with philosophical and 
dialectical accuracy. But they could not do 
this if they confined themselves to the plain and 
popular phraseology of the Bible ; they there- 
fore selected the judicial word satufactio, which 
had been already used by the older writers. 
The idea on which they began, in this case as 
in others, was itself scriptural ; but by philoso- 
phizing upon it they gradually declined from 
the simple doctrine of the Bible. This was the 
case particularly with Anselmus, whose system 
has been generally adopted, even by Lutheran 
theologians. He defined satisfactio to be dtbiti 

« b 9 



402 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



solutio. His sj'stem is exhibited most fully in 
his work, Cur Beus Homo? He maintained the 
absolute necessity of satisfaction, in the meta- 
physical sense. His whole theory is derived 
from the civil process respecting debt among men, 
transferred to the tribunal of God. But such is 
not the representation of the Bible, where the 
compassion and undeserved love of God is made 
the ground of this transaction, and not any ju- 
dicial notions of this nature. God is compared 
with a ruler who forgives from his forbearance 
and his compassionate love, and does not pro- 
ceed according to stern justice; Matt, xviii. 
26, 27. 

The following is the system of Anselmus : — 
Man owes reverence to the character of God, 
and obedience to his laws. Whoever withholds 
this reverence and obedience due to God, robs 
God of what belongs to him, and must not only 
restore that which he withheld, but pay an ad- 
ditional amount, as amends for the dishonour 
brought upon God. Thus it stands with sin- 
ners. The payment of this debt is the satisfac- 
tion which every sinner must make to God, ac- 
cording to the nature of his offence. For God 
cannot in justice remit the debt (or punishment) 
unless satisfaction is made. This man could 
never do, nor indeed any other than God him- 
self. And yet to him, as judge, must this sa- 
tisfaction be made. The expedient was then 
devised for the Son of God, as God-man, by his 
death to make this satisfaction. He was able 
to make this satisfaction only as God ; but as 
man, he was also able to be surety for men, and 
then himself actually to pay the debt, or make 
satisfaction for them. Cf. s. 101, ad finem. 

This fine-spun juridico-philosophical theory 
was exactly in the spirit of that age, and was 
almost universally adopted by the schoolmen, 
though with various modifications — e. g., by 
Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Duns 
Scotus, Gabr. Biel, and others. Among these, 
however, a controversy arose respecting the 
value, of the blood of Christ in cancelling the 
debt of the human race. Thomas Aquinas 
maintained that the value and worth (valor) of 
the blood of Christ were in themselves infinite, 
on account of the infinite dignity of the person 
of Christ; and that this ransom not only ba- 
lanced but outweighed all the sins of all men. 
He was followed by the Dominicans. This 
appears, too, to have been the opinion of Ansel- 
mus. Duns Scotus, on the other hand, main- 
tained that God was satisfied with this ransom, 
although it had not in itself any infinite value 
or worth. God, however, accepted it as suffi- 
cient and equivalent. He thus endeavoured to 
approximate to the doctrine of the Bible, which 
always represents justification as a free gift, and 
a proof of the entirely unmerited love of God. 
He was followed by the Franciscans. But even 



this statement was founded upon the judicial 
doctrine of accepiilaiio, when anything insuffi- 
cient is accepted as valid and equivalent. Cf. 
Ziegler's Essay, Historia dogmatis de redemp- 
tione inde ab ecclesize primordiis usque ad Lu- 
theri tempora; Gottingen, 1791, 4to. 

(3) On the theories and explanations of this 
doctrine which have prevailed since the six- 
teenth century. 

(a) The system of Anselmus had been ex- 
tending through the Romish church ever since 
the twelfth century, through the influence of the 
schoolmen, who added to it various new subtle- 
ties, distinctions, and terminologies. This same 
system was adopted, in main, though with the 
slight alteration of some terms and representa- 
tions, by a considerable number ofprotestant 
theologians. Luther, Melancthon, and the other 
early reformers, adhered to the simplicity of the 
Bible, and avoided these subtleties. But after 
the death of Luther, the theologians of the Lu- 
theran church took sides in great numbers with 
Anselmus and Thomas Aquinas. They nou 
introduced many of the unscriptural hypotheses 
and distinctions established by the schoolmen, 
and thus deformed the doctrine and rendered its 
truth doubtful in the minds of man} 7 . Their 
great error consisted in representing this subject 
too much after the manner of men, and, cf 
course, unworthily of God. The symbolical 
books of the protestants have, in the meantime, 
adhered to the simple Biblical representation; 
and these exaggerated opinions have been held 
rather by particular teachers and schools than 
by the protestant church generally. 

The following are examples of these faulty 
representations and expressions : — God, it is 
said, was actually injured by the sins of men ; 
he was angered and enraged! in the strict 
sense ; it was necessary that he should be propiti- 
ated, and that his robbed honour should be re- 
stored ; that he could not be moved to compassion 
fill he saw blood flow. These figurative expres- 
sions ought either to be wholly avoided in the 
scientific statement of the theory, or to be justly 
and scripturally explained. God cannot be in- 
jured in the literal sense ; his honour cannot be 
destroyed or diminished. But those who used 
these inconvenient expressions did not mean by 
them what they really imply. The proper idea 
which lies at the foundation of such phraseology 
is this : that the laws of God must be kept holy 
and inviolate; that God does and must strongly 
express his displeasure at the transgression of 
his wholesome laws; and that therefore punish- 
ments are necessary for their maintenance. 

Again ; many held that the guilt of sin is in- 
finite, (^infinitum debitum, s. 81, ad finem,) and 
that, consequently, Christ endured infinite pu- 
nishments, the pains of hell itself, (Morus, p. 169 
No. 4,) to the same amount as all sinners taken 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 403 



together would have been compelled to suffer; 
that the satisfaction of Christ was absolutely 
necessary, and the only possible way for the 
restoration of the human race; that some parti- 
cular sins were atoned for by each part of the 
sufferings of Christ; that the blood of Christ 
had a physical efficacy, &c. &c. 

(&) These false representations, and others 
like them, which are so dishonourable to God, 
gave rise to various controversies. Reflecting 
persons rejected much of this phraseology and 
this mode of representation as contrary to rea- 
son and scripture. Many also disapproved of 
the harmless term satisfaction and of all the figu- 
rative expressions relative to debt and the judi- 
cial processes respecting it which had been intro- 
duced by Anselmus, because they were so often 
perverted. At the same time, they did not deny 
any essential part of the doctrine itself, but only 
wished to simplify the subject, and to adhere 
closely both to the principles and words of the 
Bible. This scholastic system and this tech- 
nical phraseology were, on the contrary, de- 
fended with great zeal. 

(c) But since the sixteenth century there have 
not been wanting persons who not only disliked 
and rejected the ecclesiastical form and phrase- 
ology of this doctrine, but who opposed the 
doctrine itself on philosophical and theological 
grounds. Among these were Lalius Socinus 
and Faustus Socinus in the sixteenth century, 
and their numerous avowed or secret adherents 
in the same and the following centuries. They 
made the desert of Christ to consist merely in 
his doctrine and instruction. By his death he 
only confirmed his doctrine, and gave an exam- 
ple of patience, firmness in suffering, and obe- 
dience to God. The followers of Socinus en- 
deavoured to shew that there are no positive di- 
vine punishments ,• since if this were true, the 
atonement, which principally relates to the re- 
moval of these, would fall away of itself, (s. 
Ill, II.) These views were embraced by many 
of the Arminian and English theologians and 
philosophers, who were followed, in the eigh- 
teenth century, by great numbers of German 
protestants. Vide the Essays on this subject 
in Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates; and Stein- 
bart, System der Gliickseligkeitslehre, &c. 

Philosophers are at liberty to speculate upon 
this subject, according to their own views and 
their favourite theories, variable and transient 
as they are. If they please, they may investi- 
gate the subject independently of the Bible, and 
propose the results of their investigation for the 
examination of the learned. They ought, how- 
ever, to avoid the error, so frequently committed 
ever since the time of Socinus, of thinking that 
the Bible must necessarily contain the doctrines 
approved as true on the philosophical principles 
cf their own particular schools — the fault of in- 



terpreting the Bible, not according to its own 
spirit, and the spirit of the age in which it was 
written, but according to the views of particular 
sects of philosophers in their own times — a fault 
which has been often repeated of late by the 
adherents of Kant and his successors. Let any 
one consider the various and contradictory the- 
ories of the different philosophical schools in 
our own age. Now each of these schools at- 
tempts to support its own theory by the author- 
ity of the holy scriptures. But all of these the- 
ories cannot possibly be founded in the Bible; 
and who can say which of them all is so"? 

What is essential in the common ecclesiastical 
system respecting the atonement is clearly re- 
vealed in the scriptures, and is entirely adapted 
to the spirit of the sacred writers and their 
whole mode of thinking, to the wants of the 
age in which they wrote, and to the wants of 
mankind at large. Vide s. 108, seq. Morus 
has briefly exhibited the essentials of this doc- 
trine, p. 150—155, s. 4—6. 

(4) Many protestant theologians began as 
early as the seventeenth century to depart by 
degrees from the theory of Anselmus, which 
presents so many difficulties, and is liable to so 
many weighty objections, and to bring back 
this doctrine to the simplicity of the Bible. The 
book of Grotius, " De satisfactione Christi," 
(Leiden, 1617; Halas, 1730, ed. Joach. Lange,) 
was the first thing done towards undermining 
the system of Anselmus. Grotius indeed made 
the ecclesiastical system the ground of his 
work, but he deduced the necessity of satisfac- 
tion, not so much from the injury done to God 
as from the holiness and inviolableness of the 
divine laws, which render punishments neces- 
sary for the good of men. In this he exactly 
accorded with the Bible. He shewed that there 
was no internal and absolute necessity for this 
satisfaction, but that the necessity was only 
moral or relative. These and other views of this 
scholar became gradually more current among 
theologians, who sought both to bring them into 
a still nearer agreement with the Bible and also 
to reconcile them with the established system 
of the church. 

Some protestant theologians have made use 
of the new systems of philosophy which have 
become successively prevalent in modern times, 
to illustrate and defend the doctrine of the Bible 
and of the church. Thus Carpzov, Baumgarten, 
and others, made use of the Leibnitz-Wolfian 
philosophy. Vide also Reinbeck, Tract. Theol. 
de redemptione per lytron; Halle, 1710, 8vo ; 
Theod. le Blanc, Erweis der Genugthuung Jesu 
Christi, with the preface of Rambach; Giessen, 
1733, 8vo; — one of the best of the older works. 
Staudlin and others have made the same use of 
the philosophy of Kant, as Kant himself has 
done in his "Religion innerhalb der Grenzcn 



404 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



der blossen Vernunft." But other3, with equal 
zeal, have employed these very same philoso- 
phical systems in opposition to this doctrine of 
the Bible. One of the most zealous opponents 
of the doctrine of the atonement in modern times 
is Dr. Loffler, in his work, " Ueber die kirch- 
licheGenugthuungslehre; Zullichau, 1796, 8vo. 

(5) The frequent attacks made in our own 
age both upon the ancient ecclesiastical system 
and upon the doctrine of the Bible itself have 
made it necessary to state this doctrine more 
accurately than was formerly done. Many mo- 
derate theologians have endeavoured so to ex- 
hibit this doctrine that it should agree both with 
the decisions of Revelation and with the ac- 
knowledged principles of sound reason, thus 
rendering it intelligible, and obviating the most 
important objections against it. Since the mid- 
dle of the eighteenth century many have laboured 
to effect this object, though not with equal suc- 
cess. Among these are Ernesti, Tollner, Danov, 
Noesselt, (Vom Werth der Moral,) Less, Gries- 
bach, (Praktische Dogmatik,) Doderlein, (Dog- 
matik,) Miehaelis, (Gedanken von der Siinde 
und Genugthuung;. Gottingen, 1779, 8vo,) and 
Seiler, (Ueber den Versohnungstod Jesu, with 
some essays, &c, 2nd ed.; Erlangen, 1782, gr. 
8vo; in connexion with which the doctrine of 
justification is treated.) The lastmentioned 
writer endeavours to refute the objections of 
Eberhard and Steinbart. Among the latest 
writers on this subject is Dr. Gottlob Christ. 
Storr, (Pauli Brief an die Hebraer erlautert; 
Tubingen, 1789, 8vo; 2nd Ausg. Tubingen, 
1809. Second part, Ueber den eigentlichen Zwech 
des Todes Jesu, s. 363—692.) He holds that 
the object of the death of Christ is not directly 
the reformation of men, and that their exemption 
from punishment is not the effect of their re- 
formation; but that the direct and immediate 
object of his death is, to procure the forgiveness 
of sin, and to make atonement. Another writer 
is Schwarze, (in Gorlitz,) "Ueber den Tod 
Jesu, als ein wesentliches Stuck seines Wohlt- 
hatigen Plans zur Begliickung der Menschen ; 
Leipzig, 1795, 8vo. The discourse delivered 
by Dr. Reinhard, at the Reformationsfeste, on 
the text, Rom. iii. 23, seq., containing a brief 
and practical statement of the scripture doctrine 
of the atonement, excited much attention, espe- 
cially from the unusual manner of its publica- 
tion, and led to many writings for and against 
the doctrine of the Bible. Among these the 
following work is in many respects favourably 
distinguished : — ■" Der Widerstreit der Vernunft 
mit sich selbst in der Versohnungslehre, darge- 
stellt und aufgelost, von Krug;" Zullichau, 
1802, 8vo. 

The essential points in the theory adopted by 
the moderate theologians of the protestant church 
may be thus stated : — God had a twofold object 



in view — viz., (a) to preserve inviolate the au- 
thority of his law given for the good of man. 
How could this be effected otherwise than by 
the punishment of transgression, threatened and 
actually inflicted 1 (6) But as a slavish fear of 
God is utterly inconsistent with pure religion, 
($o,3oj £xf5u%%£c Tfrjv wydrcrjv, 1 John, iv. 18,) 
some means must be chosen to free men from 
their reasonable fear of punishment, and to give 
them a certain assurance that God would forgive 
them, be gracious to them, and count them 
worthy of his favour, in such a way, however, 
as not to occasion indifference with regard to 
sin. Both of these objects were attained by the 
sufferings and death of Christ; the first by the 
proof given, through the sufferings of Jesus, that 
God abhors sin and will not leave it unpunished ; 
the second, by the declaration of God that Christ 
had suffered these punishments for our good, in 
our stead, and on our behalf. Death is the con- 
sequence of sin, and is in itself a great evil. We 
must regard it as the sum of all evils and terrors. 
(Hence in the Bible death stands for every hind 
of misery.) Especially is this the case with a 
violent and excruciating death, which is the pu- 
nishment of the greatest criminals. Such a 
death did God himself inflict upon Christ, who 
was himself entirely guiltless, (ayto$ xal d^'xcuoj.) 
God, however, could not be so unjust and cruel 
as to inflict such a punishment upon an innocent 
person without object or design. Hence we may 
conclude that Christ endured his sufferings and 
death for men who should properly have endured 
these punishments, in order to inspire them with 
confidence in God, with gratitude and love to 
him, and to banish all fear of the divine punish- 
ments from their hearts. It all comes back, 
therefore, at last, to this, that God chose this 
extraordinary means from the impulse of his 
own sincere love and benevolence to men. Thus 
the scriptures always represent it, and on this 
view we should always proceed in our religious 
instructions. Vide Moms, p. 152, seq., s. 6. 
But if men would be certain that they have in 
this way obtained the forgiveness of their sins, 
they must place their entire dependence on 
Christ; they must repent of their sins ; by the 
help of God lead a holy life, and punctually ob- 
serve all the divine laws. This is an indispen- 
sable duty and an essential condition of salva- 
tion through Christ; and to one who has sincere 
love to God and to Christ, this will not be diffi 
cult. Obedience to God, being prompted by love 
and gratitude, will be yielded with cheerfulness. 
No one, however, must consider his repentance 
or holiness as the meritorious ground of forgive- 
ness. For forgiveness is not the effect and con- 
sequence of our holiness, but flows from the 
death of Christ. 

This doctrine thus exhibited cannot be injuri 
ous to morality; on the contrary, it produces the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 405 



most beneficial effects upon those who believe 
it from the heart, (s. 108, II.) So experience 
teaches. We see the most convincing- proofs of 
the beneficial tendencies of this doctrine in those 
Christian communities, both of ancient and mo- 
dern times, where it has been faithfully taught 
and cordially believed. [Cf. Tholuck, Lehre 
von der Siinde und vom Versohner, s. 104, ff. 
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 475 — 500. Bretschneider, 
Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 245 — 355. Neander, b. i. 
Abth. ii. s. 70 — 78. Flatt's Magazine, b. i. s. 
1 — 67, Ueber die Moglichkeit der Siinden-Ver- 
gebung. — Tr.] 

SECTION CXV. 

OF THE ACTIVE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST. 

I. What is meant by Active Obedience ,- and a His- 
tory of this Doctrine. 
Christ's cheerful discharge of the commis- 
sion given him by God is called his obedience 
(vrtaxor]) ; according to the example of the 
Bible — e. g., Phil. iii. 9 ; Rom. v. 19 ; Morus, p. 
161, s. 7. Morus justly defines the obedience 
of Christ to be, per actio eorum, quae peragere de- 
buit, et in peragendo summa virtus. Christ ex- 
hibited this obedience in two ways — viz., (a) 
by acting (agendo') — i. e., by keeping and ob- 
serving the divine laws ; (6) by suffering, (pa- 
tiendo) — i. e., by cheerfully undertaking and 
enduring suffering for the good of men, in ac- 
cordance with the divine determination. Cf. s. 
93, III., and s. 95, ad finem. The former way 
is called obedientia activa, (not active in the 
sense of busy, which would be aciuosa, but in 
the sense of acting, Germ, thuender ,•) the latter, 
obedientia passiva. These two ways may be 
thus distinguished in abstracto. But they ought 
not to have been separated from each other. 
Christ's active obedience is not properly differ- 
ent from his passive obedience. His obedience 
is one and the same in all cases. Suffering, in 
itself considered, so far as it consists in unplea- 
sant sensations, is not obedience. A person may 
suffer and not be obedient, but impatient, dis- 
obedient, and refractory. But for one to suffer 
obediently, or to shew obedience in suffering, 
this is an acting, a fulfilment of duty, or that vir- 
tue which is called patience, one of the greatest 
and most difficult of virtues! But how can a 
virtue, which consists entirely in acting, be called 
passive ? In truth, then, the obedience of Christ 
is one and the same thing, consisting always in 
acting. It is that virtue by which Christ ful- 
filled not only the moral laws of God, but also 
the positive divine commands which were laid 
upon him, to suffer, to die, &c. Obedience is 
never wholly passive, and what is simply passive 
is not obedience. But a person shews obedience 
by acting in suffering. 



Theologians commonly hold that the active 
obedience of Christ was as much a part of his 
atonement or satisfaction as his passive obe- 
dience. This opinion might be more clearly and 
definitively expressed as follows : — The satisfac- 
tion which Christ has made consists both in his 
enduring the punishments incurred by men and 
in his yielding a perfect obedience to the divine 
laws. This is what is meant by theologians. 
This opinion is derived from the twofold obliga- 
tion of men (a) to keep the divine laws, and (b) 
when they have failed, to suffer punishment for 
their sin. In this way the satisfaction of Christ 
came to be considered as consisting of two parts, 
active and passive. This view was then con- 
nected with the theory of Anselmus, respecting 
the removal of the guilt and penalty of sin. The 
suffering of Christ removes the penalty, and his 
active obedience the guilt of sin ; and the per- 
fect righteousness of Christ, or his fulfilment of 
the law, is imputed to us, in the same way as 
if we ourselves had fulfilled the law, and thus 
our defective obedience is made good. Respect- 
ing this doctrine de remissione culpse et poense. 
Vide s. 109, II. 2. This is in brief the common 
theory, which will be more particularly exa- 
mined, No. II. 

We subjoin a brief history of this doctrine. 
Good materials for this history may be found in 
Walch's Inaugural Disputation, de obedientia 
Christi activa; Gottingen, 1754, 4to. 

Passages are found even among the ancient 
fathers, which teach that the fulfilment of the 
divine law by Christ is to be considered as if 
done by us. Vide the passages cited by Walch. 
Many of these passages, however, appear very 
doubtful and indefinite, and this doctrine was 
by no means universally established in the early 
church. Even Anselmus, who built up such an 
artificial system, did not make this application 
of the twofold obedience of Christ. This, how- 
ever, was the tendency of his theory, especially 
of the doctrine, de remissione culpx et poense. 
But after his time, this explanation of the satis- 
faction made by Christ by means of his twofold 
obedience was adopted by several schoolmen, 
who now looked up texts for its support. But 
it was never very generally adopted by theolo- 
gians of the Romish church. In the protestant 
church, on the contrary, it has been almost uni- 
versally taught by our theologians since the six- 
teenth century, and even introduced into the 
"Form of Concord," (Morus, p. 1G9, n. 5,) 
which, however, never received an universal 
symbolical authority in the Lutheran church. 
This explanation is not found in the other sym- 
bols. One reason, perhaps, of the reception of 
this explanation in the protestant church, is the 
supposition that the theory de obedientia activa 
could be used to advantage against the catholic 
tenet of the value of one's own good works 



406 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Another reason is, that the imputation of the 
active obedience of Christ was denied by the 
Socinians and Arminians. For these reasons, 
most of the Lutheran and Reformed theologians 
accounted this doctrine essential to sound ortho- 
doxy. But doubting whether the active obe- 
dience of Christ constitutes a part of his satis- 
faction, has no influence upon the plan of salva- 
tion through repentance, faith, and godliness. 
Baumgarten and Ernesti have therefore justly 
enumerated this dispute among those of second- 
ary importance. And, in fact, the difference 
among theologians upon this subject has often 
been more apparent than real. There were, in- 
deed, some protestant theologians, even in the 
former century, who denied the desert of the 
active obedience of Christ — e. g., the Lutheran 
theologian Karg, or Parsimonius ,- also the Re- 
formed theologian John Piscator, who had many 
followers; more lately, Jo. la Placette, and 
others. The same was done by many of the 
English theologians, who in general adopted 
the Arminian views. But from the end of the 
sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
tury the opinion was by far the most prevalent 
in the Lutheran church that the active obedience 
of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction, or vi- 
carious. This opinion is defended even by 
Walch in the place just referred to. 

But since the time of Tollner the subject has 
been presented in a different light. He pub- 
lished a work entitled, " Der thatige Gehorsam 
Christi;" Breslau, 1768, 8vo. In this he de- 
nied that the active obedience of Christ is of the 
nature of satisfaction. Upon this a violent con- 
troversy commenced. Schubert, Wichmann, 
and others, wrote against him, and he, in reply, 
published his « Zustitze ,•" Berlin, 1770. The 
best critique of this matter is that of Ernesti, 
Theol. Bibl. b. ix. s. 914, f. For the history 
of the whole controversy vide Walch, Neeuste 
Religionsgeschichte, th. iii. s. 311, f. The sub- 
ject is considered also in Eberhard, Apologie 
des Socrates, th. ii. s. 310, f. Of late years, a 
great number of protestant theologians have de- 
clared themselves in behalf of the opinion that 
the active obedience of Christ is properly no 
part of his satisfaction, which is the effect solely 
of his passive obedience. Among these are 
Zacharia, Griesbach, Doderlein. 

II. The ivorth and uses of the Active Obedience of 
Christ. 
That Christ did render this perfect obedience 
is clear, both from the fact of his being sinless, 
(s. 93, iii.) and from the express declarations 
of the Bible, Matt. v. 17 ; John, iv. 34, viii. 29 ; 
Phil. ii. 8. Cf. likewise the texts Ps. xl. 7, 
cited by Paul, Heb. x. 5. This perfect obedi- 
ence is useful to us in the following respects : — 
(1) This obedience of Christ stands in the 



most close and intimate connexion with his 
whole work for the good of mankind. His suf- 
ferings and death could not possibly have the 
worth and the salutary consequences ascribed to 
them in the scriptures, if Christ had endured 
them otherwise than as innocent and perfectly 
holy. His innocence and perfect virtue are there- 
fore frequently mentioned by the apostles, when 
they speak of the worth of his sufferings and 
death, Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; iii. 18. In 
Heb. vii. 27, Paul shews that the death of Christ 
was so infinitely superior to all Jewish sacri- 
fices, because Christ w r as sinless, and was not 
compelled, like the Jewish priests, first to purify 
himself by offering sacrifice for his own sins. 

(2) Christ's obedience to the divine laws is 
useful and instructive to us, in furnishing us 
with a perfect example of holiness and spotless 
virtue. Christ explained the divine laws not 
merely by instruction, but by action. His 
whole conduct was a living recommendation of 
the purest and most perfect morality, and power- 
fully plead in behalf of virtue. To this the New 
Testament frequently alludes, 1 John, iii. 3 ; 
1 Pet. ii. 21 ; Heb. xii. 2. 

(3) But besides this, the active obedience of 
Christ, taken by itself, is considered by many 
a separate part of his satisfaction, as well as his 
passive obedience. Vide No. 1. They sup- 
pose it to be vicarious, in itself considered, or 
that it will be imputed to us — i. e., that merely 
on account of the perfect obedience yielded by 
Christ to the divine law we shall be regarded 
and treated by God as if we ourselves had per- 
fectly obeyed. Accordingly, they suppose that 
Christ, in our stead, has supplied or made good 
our imperfect obedience to the divine law. To 
this view there are the following objections — 
viz., 

(a) Christ never spoke of an imputation of 
his obedience and virtue, as he frequently did 
of his sufferings and death. The same is true 
of the apostles. Christ frequently speaks in 
general of his doing the will of his Father for 
the good of men, and teaches that this obedi- 
ence will be for the good of those who believe 
on him. He does so very frequently in the 
Gospel of John, iii. iv., vi., xiii., seq. 17. But 
here he refers to his whole obedience both in 
acting and suffering, and does not separate one 
from the other. Indeed, there are passages 
where the apostles must necessarily have spoken 
of the active obedience of Christ as vicarious, 
if they had held any such doctrine. E. g., 
Rom. vii., viii., where Paul laments the weak- 
ness and imperfection of human nature, by 
which man is unable, even with the best inten- 
tions, perfectly to fulfil the divine commands. 
In this connexion, nothing would have been 
more consoling than the mention of the vicari- 
ous obedience of Christ, by which our imper» 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION 



407 



feet obedience is made good. But nothing of 
all this ! For the consolation of the pious, he 
mentions only the death, resurrection, and inter- 
cession of Christ, Rom. viii. 33, 34. 

The active obedience of Christ, however, is 
not excluded. In Rom. v. 19, the apostle makes 
mention of it. In this passage, which is cited 
as one of the most important proof-texts, we 
read, "As through the disobedience of -Adam 
many became sinners, so through the obedience 
of Christ many are made righteous," or are par- 
doned. In ver. 18, the 7iapdii-to>p.a 'ASa^u and 
btxaiiop.a Xpustov are contrasted. Now, accord- 
ing to the uniform scriptural usage, this obe- 
dience of Christ does not refer simply and ex- 
clusively to his active obedience, but principally 
to his obedience to the divine command to suffer 
and die for us, Phil. ii. 8 ; Heb. v. 8, 9. But 
in the passage cited, the apostle clearly com- 
prises under the word vnaxo'q the whole obedi- 
dience of Christ, and teaches that this, especial- 
ly as shewn in suffering for us, is for our good. 
Cf. Rom. x.4. On the whole, then, our position, 
that the perfect obedience of Christ to the divine 
commands, separately considered, (i. e., discon- 
nected from his death,) is never mentioned in the 
Bible as meritorious, is confirmed. The scrip- 
tures declare that the whole obedience of Christ, 
exhibited both in acting and suffering, is for our 
good. But they never divide this obedience, as 
theologians have frequently done. The whole 
obedience of Christ is useful to us principally 
on account of his obedience shewn in suffering. 

(Z>) The perfect obedience of Christ, it is as- 
serted, must needs be imputed to us, in order to 
make good our defective obedience to the law, 
since the justice of God demands perfect obe- 
dience. But to this it may be answered, (a) 
That it is difficult to see how this is necessary; 
for our imperfect obedience to the divine law is 
either guiltless on our part, — in which case there 
is no imputation of guilt, and consequently no 
reason why another's righteousness should be 
imputed to us, — or it is guilty and deserving of 
punishment. But this punishment is already 
removed by the sufferings and death (the pas- 
sive obedience) of Christ. But that the guilt 
as well as punishment of sin is and must be 
removed by Christ, cannot be proved. Vide s. 
109, II. 2. (,6) It is inconsistent with many 
other principles and declarations of the Bible — 
e. g., with the principle that man will be re- 
warded or punished, xatatalpyu avtov, Rom. 
ii. 6. Here the imputation of the merit of an- 
other's works is entirely excluded. The ancient 
prophets, and all the teachers of the New Tes- 
tament from the time of John the Baptist, con- 
tended strenuously against the opinion of the 
Jews respecting the imputation of the vicarious 
righteousness of Abraham. Vide s. 108, I. 3. 
We should not therefore expect such a doctrine 



as this from them; but the scripture doctrine of 
the merit of the whole obedience of Christ is 
fully secured against perversion by the frequent 
inculcation of diligence in holiness. Vide s. 
114, ad fin. It has as little resemblance to the 
Jewish doctrine of the merit of the good works 
of Abraham, as it has to that of the Romish 
church, respecting the desert of the good works 
of the saints. 

(c) Many questionable conclusions may be 
deduced from this doctrine, which would indeed 
be rejected by its advocates, but which cannot 
be easily avoided. 

(«) We might conclude from the doctrine 
that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us, 
and that on account of it we are rewarded by 
God, that the long-continued and high virtue of 
a confirmed Christian is of no greater value in 
the sight of God, and will receive no greater 
reward, than the imperfect virtue of a beginner ; 
for the deficiencies of the latter in personal ho- 
liness will, according to this doctrine, be made 
up by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed 
to him — i. e., considered as his own obedience. 
But this is contrary to the fundamental princi- 
ples both of reason and revelation. 

(f3) However much this doctrine may be 
guarded against perversion by saying that the 
personal virtue of the Christian is not excluded 
or dispensed with, it must doubtless weaken the 
motive to holiness of life, and thus prove inju- 
rious to the interests of morality. Why was it 
necessary for Christianity to point out so many 
means of holiness, in order that we might attain 
perfect happiness, if in this way it could be at 
once attained with so little difficulty and labour. 

Note. — It may help to settle the controversy 
on this subject to consider that it has originated 
solely in mistake. Two things have been sepa- 
rated which never can be put asunder, and 
which never are in the Bible, but, on the con- 
trary, are always connected. All that Christ 
did and suffered for our good receives its pecu- 
liar worth from the fact that he did it from obe- 
dience to the divine will. This is the virtue 
or obedience of Christ. If we would partake 
of the salutary consequences of his sufferings, 
we must, under divine guidance and assistance, 
follow his example. This is an indispensable 
condition. The two things are always connect- 
ed in the Bible, and should be in our instruc- 
tions; and then this doctrine cannot be abused. 
The remarks made by Morus, p. 170, 171, are 
directed to this point. 

The Bible indeed justifies us in saying, (1) 
that everything which Christ actively performed 
during his whole life, in obedience to God, is 
salutary to us, was done on our account, and 
for our good. But (2) we therefore truly af- 
firm, that our whole happiness (o^rr^a) is the 
fruit in a special manner of his obedience to the 



408 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



divine command, both in his suffering and in all 
the actions of his life. Had he not shewn this 
obedience, we should not have attained to this 
happiness. So the scriptures everywhere teach. 
The obedience of Christ in suffering is therefore 
the foundation, and imparts to us the assurance, 
that all his other obedience, in respect to all the 
divine commands, will be for our benefit; John, 
vi. 51; iii. 14—16; xii. 24; 1 John, iv. 9 ; 1 
Thess. v. 9, seq. No injury to morals need be 
apprehended if the scripture doctrine is follow- 
ed, and things which belong together are not 
separated. Vide s. 114, ad finem. 



PART II. OF CHAPTER IV. 

ON REDEMPTION FROM THE POWER OR DOMI- 
NION OF SIN. 



SECTION CXVI. 

OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE ; ITS CON- 
FORMITY WITH SCRIPTURE ; AND THE MANNER 
IN WHICH WE ARE FREED FROM SIN THROUGH 
CHRIST. 

I. Importance of this Doctrine. 

In treating of the work of redemption, writers 
have commonly considered only the first part 
— the atonement, or freedom from the punish- 
ment of sin. But deliverance from sin belongs 
as really to the redemption of Christ as deliver- 
ance from punishment, which indeed Ernesti 
and others have before remarked. By the death 
of Christ we are indeed, as the scriptures teach, 
delivered from the punishment of sin. But since 
the disposition to sin is so strong and universal 
among men, (and this is the whole cause of 
their degeneracy and unhappiness,) some means 
must needs be pointed out, in the proper use of 
which they may, under divine assistance, over- 
come this bias and propensity to sin, and may 
attain to true holiness and the practice of virtue, 
acceptable in the sight of God. If Christ had 
not shewn us such means, his work of redemp- 
tion would have been incomplete, and his atone- 
ment in vain. For we can participate in the 
blessings of redemption, even after we have ob- 
tained forgiveness, only by avoiding sin and 
living righteously. And had not Christ fur- 
nished us with means to do this, his atonement 
would be of no avail. 

The reason why this has not been commonly 
considered in the systems of theology as making 
a part of the work of redemption, is, that the 
Socinians have regarded it as constituting the 
whole of this work, exclusive of the atonement 
of Christ by his sufferings and death. Evange- 
lical writers, therefore, though they did not en- 



tirely omit this important part of Christ's work, 
passed it by in this connexion, in order to avoid 
all fellowship with such an opinion, and to af- 
ford no appearance of diminishing in the least 
from the influence of the atonement or satisfac- 
tion of Christ. But in conformity with the 
Bible, even the ancient fathers considered both 
of these things as belonging to the work of re- 
demption — e. g., Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the 
Great, and Gregory the Great. The latter says, 
" Christ became man, not only to atone for us 
by his sufferings and death ; but also to instruct 
us, and to give us an example." This is the 
full scriptural idea of a,7io%vtpojGi^. Cf. s. 106, 
II. Therefore redemption (artoT.u-z'pcootf) com- 
prises the two following parts — viz., (1) Deli- 
verance from the punishment of sin (tXow/toj, 
atonement, xcwaM.ayjj) ; (2) from the power and 
dominion of sin. The former is effected by his 
sufferings and death, and is confirmed by his 
resurrection and intercession. The latter is ef- 
fected by his doctrine, accompanied by divine 
power (the assistance of the Holy Spirit,) and 
by his example. 

The connexion of these two parts, as we learn 
it from scripture and experience, is this : — 
When an individual is assured of his forgive- 
ness through Christ, he is filled with the most 
sincere love and gratitude to God and to Christ. 
" He to whom much is forgiven, loves much ;" 
Luke, vii. 47. These feelings render him dis- 
posed and desirous to obey the commands of 
God and Christ. This obedience, flowing from 
love, is not burdensome, but easy and joyful ; 
1 John, v. 3, seq. The actual participation 
in the benefits of this second part of Christ's 
work, belongs, therefore, in all its extent, to 
those only who have experienced the benefits 
of the former part. A Christian teacher, there- 
fore, proceeds preposterously, and contrary to 
the example of the holy scriptures, when he ex- 
hibits and inculcates only the second part, either 
passing the first in silence, or exciting doubts 
with regard to it, or casting contempt upon i.t. 
He ought to connect the two parts, and to exhi- 
bit them clearly and scripturally, as the apostles 
have done. The method of the apostles has 
been proved the best by experience. Whenever 
the atonement of Christ, or the first part of the 
work of redemption, has been omitted, little 
has been effected by preaching morality, and 
holding up the example of Jesus. Men may- 
be taught in this way what they should be, bui 
are left ignorant of the means of becoming so. 

II. This Doctrine True and Scriptural. 
It is the doctrine of the Bible, that Christ be- 
came man, not only to free us from the punish- 
ment of sin, but from sin itself. Jesus himself 
says this, John, viii. 32, 36, seq. Cf. John, *\ 
The writings of the apostles contain passages 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 409 



of the same import — e. g., Titus, ii. 11 — 14. 
Here Paul shews Titus what he ought to teach. 
He says (ver. 11, 12), that Christianity makes 
men pious and virtuous, and gives them the 
most cheerful anticipations of the future. Now 
(ver. 14) he mentions the redemption of Christ, 
implying (a) that he died for us Q8u>xev eavtbv 
vitsp ^uv) ; (b) that he designed to deliver us 
("kvtpJxsqtcu) from all unrighteousness (arco 
7tdcw avojxia$), and make us the friends of God, 
and ready for all good works, (Christian vir- 
tues.) Here plainly u7to%vtpc*ai>s implies both 
the particulars above mentioned. So 1 Pet. i. 
18, Christ delivered us (jivrpovv) Ix pa-talus 
avastpo^, from a sinful, heathenish, vicious life. 
Ephes. ii. 9, 10, " We are xtca&vtss iv Xptcyr£ 
*fti spyot$ aya$ol$" — i. e., renewed, placed in a 
situation in which we can act virtuously. Gal. 
i. 4, " Christ gave himself rtspi ay-ap-tiuv yjfiuiv 
(to deliver us from sin), and to rescue us from 
our former condition in the service of sin, (ortcoj 
i^i^yjtat ex tov chwvoj rtoi^poiS.)" The two 
things are connected still more clearly, 1 Pet. 
ii. 24, " Christ suffered on the cross the punish- 
ment of our sins; we ought therefore to die to 
sin, and live entirely for holiness. For to his 
sufferings are we indebted for all our blessed- 
ness (this twofold good) ; by his stripes we are 
healed." 

In order deeply to impress the mind with the 
close connexion and the practical use of both of 
these parts, the apostles frequently transfer the 
terms relating to the death of Christ to the 
moral improvement or holiness of men, effected 
by him. E. g., We ought to die spiritually to 
sin, as he died for it bodily; to rise, &c. Vide 
the texts already cited ; also Rom. vi. 4 ; viii. 
10, &c. 

More important still are the passages which 
teach that Christ delivered us from the power 
and dominion of Satan, as Ephes. ii. 2 ; that he 
has destroyed the power of the devil, &c. ; John, 
xii. 31, seq. This phraseology is best explained 
by the passage, 1 John, iii. 8, 6 rtotwv afiaptiav 
tx Siafiohov sativ (diaboli Alius, or diabolo simi- 
lis, ver. 12 ; John, viii. 44) ; for he sinned of 
old (art' ap^j). Again, Etj tovto E^owtpw^ 6 
Tlo$ ©sov, 'ivu %,vsvj spya 8iaf56'kov. The latter 
clause, spy a Sta3d?un>, is clearly synonymous 
with afiaptiai. Sins are thus described, because 
the devil is regarded as the author of them, and 
because by committing sin we resemble him, 
and are instruments in his hand ; as, on the con- 
trary, spya ®sov, are virtuous and pious actions — 
such as flow from likeness to God, or love to 
him. 

III. The manner in which Christ delivers us from 
Sin. 

If we would obtain definite conceptions upon 
this subject, we must come down to the simplest 
52 



possible ideas, and avoid the vague and obscure 
expressions with which mystics are wont to 
darken their own views. In representing the 
matter briefly, writers are often content with 
saying that new power and ability to do good is 
afforded us by Christ. This representation ac- 
cords perfectly with the holy scriptures, with 
the promise of Christ, and with Christian expe- 
rience. From this language, however, we are 
not to understand that any miraculous assistance 
is furnished by Christ. This power is usually 
afforded in a natural manner, and the scriptures 
themselves clearly point out the means by which 
it is obtained. That Christ frequently and dis- 
tinctly promised his aid and support at all times 
to all his followers, if they on their part per- 
formed the requisite conditions, is made certain 
from the scriptures ; Matt, xxviii. 20. The 
term SaW/uj 'Kpistov occurs frequently in John 
and in the epistles. Vide John, xv. 1, seq. ; 2 
Cor. xii. 9; 2 Pet. i. 3, 4. 

This assistance of God and Christ which is 
promised to Christians in connexion with their 
use of the Christian doctrine, does not act in a 
manner inconsistent with the powers and con- 
stitution of human nature, but wholly in accord- 
ance with them. According to the wise consti- 
tution of our nature, all our actions are princi- 
pally dependent upon the fixed determination 
of the will, which is again dependent upon the 
strength and clearness of the motives present to 
the understanding. Now we are frequently 
hindered by external circumstances which are 
beyond our control from the practice of virtue. 
In this case we are without guilt, and the omis- 
sion cannot be imputed to us. (Here, however, 
we are liable to deception by thinking we are 
without fault, when this is not true.) But often 
the fault is in ourselves. We allow sense to 
rule our reason. We refuse properly to consider 
the motives placed before us, or we neglect op- 
portunity of instructing ourselves respecting 
duty ; or are chargeable, perhaps, with both of 
these faults. If now, in this case, we disobey 
the law of God, we are apt to bemoan our weak 
ness and want of power for doing good. Such 
faults and weakness of the understanding and will 
cannot be corrected by any miraculous power 
afforded by Christ; and the virtue which should 
be effected by such a miraculous., power would 
cease to be a personal virtue of the one in whom 
it was wrought, and consequentlv could not be 
imputed to him. There is no other way but for 
man to learn the motives to piety and the avoid- 
ing of sin which are presented in the Christian 
doctrine, and to form the fixed resolve that, 
under divine guidance and assistance, he will 
govern his own will by what he knows to be 
the will of God and Christ. Only then, when 
he has done everything on his part, can he count 
upon the divine assistance. Until man has 
2M 



410 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



done his part, he is incapable of that assistance 
which God and Christ have promised to afford. 
If we are wanting in this thankful love to God 
and Christ, which has been before insisted upon, 
we must also be wanting in the disposition either 
to learn or obey his will ; and in this condition, 
we are of course disqualified for his assistance. 
These remarks lead directly to the answer of 
\he question, How are we delivered by Christ 
from the power and dominion of sin? When 
we derive the motives for obedience to the di- 
vine precepts from the instructions and example 
of Christ, and suffer these to control our affec- 
tions, and when we do this from grateful love to 
God and to Christ, we then fulfil the conditions 
which are essential on our part, in order that we 
may rely upon this promised guidance and as- 
sistance. We shall shew, in the following sec- 
tion, what is taught in the Bible respecting the 
efficacy of the instruction and example of Christ, 
in overcoming the power of sin. By the in- 
struction of Christ we obtain exact and distinct 
information respecting the nature of sin and its 
consequences, &c. His instruction and example 
shew the means and motives for avoiding sin, 
and leading upright and pious lives, (Swcauoj 
xai £x>tf£j8wj.) 

SECTION CXVII. 

OF THE DELIVERANCE FROM THE POWER AND DO- 
MINION OF SIN, FOR WHICH WE ARE INDEBTED, 
UNDER DIVINE ASSISTANCE, TO THE INSTRUC- 
TION AND EXAMPLE OF CHRIST. 

I. Scriptural Doctrine respecting the Efficacy of 
Ckrisfs Instructions in subduing Sin. 

(1) The doctrine of Christ informs us dis- 
tinctly what are the requisitions of the divine 
law, and how we should order our life in con- 
formity with them ; it teaches us to notice every 
deviation from this law, and the dreadful conse- 
quences of disobedience; and it gives these in- 
structions in a manner which is plain and intel- 
ligible to every mind. This comprehensive and 
complete instruction as to the whole extent of 
Christian duty gives the Christian doctrine a 
great advantage above other moral codes, in 
which only the more violent outbreakings of sin 
are at all noticed. The apostles everywhere 
exhibit, with great earnestness, this advantage 
of the Christian doctrine, and Christ himself 
declares it to have been one great object of his 
coming into the world, to give this instruction. 
Accordingly, Matt. v. 21, seq., he gives exam- 
ples of this more complete instruction about the 
duties of man, as drawn from the divine com- 
mands. 

Those religious teachers, therefore, mistake 
very much w r ho make the doctrines of faith the 
only subjects of discourse, entirely omitting 



Christian ethics, and perhaps speaking 3on- 
temptuously of them. These moral instruc- 
tions constitute a most valuable portion of the 
Christian system. Even the enemies of Chris- 
tianity, both in ancient and modern times, have 
done justice to the morality of the gospel. But 
our own age does not need to be warned so 
much against this fault as against the opposite 
one of inculcating the mere morality of the 
Bible, and of speaking disrespectfully of the 
evangelical doctrines. The teachers of religion 
should connect the two together, as the sacred 
writers do, and should draw the motives to ho- 
liness, virtue, and moral purity from the doc- 
trines of the Christian religion. Vide s. 116, 
I. ad finem. It was not the manner of Christ 
to teach the duties without the doctrines of reli- 
gion. Neither he nor his apostles separated the 
one from the other. The gospel contains both. 
The doctrine respecting Christ, and the other 
great doctrines of faith, afford a powerful support 
to moral lessons, and so they are uniformly em- 
ployed by the apostles. This method, however 
much disregarded at present, deserves to be seri- 
ously recommended to every teacher of religion 
who is desirous of promoting the true and lasting 
interest of his hearers. Christian ethics teach 
us our duty ; and Christian doctrines open the 
sources from which we must draw strength to 
perform it. In popular discourse, then, instruc- 
tion in morals should always be connected with 
and derived from evangelical doctrines. 

(2) The Christian doctrine gives full instruc- 
tion respecting the manner of suppressing our 
sinful inclinations, and the means we should 
use to overcome temptation to sin, to weaken 
the pow r er of sense, and to make constant ad- 
vances in holiness. Tit. ii. 11, seq., "The sa- 
lutary system of Christianity is designed by 
God for all men. It teaches us (riaibsvovaa) to 
renounce all irreligion (aotieia), and all the 
sinful passions that prevail among men (xos/jlv 
xai ETt&vixlcu) ; and, on the contrary, to live 
wisely, piously, and virtuously on the earth." 
2 Pet. i. 3, 4, seq. This passage contains the 
following truths : — " God gives us power to 
lead a virtuous life (£io^ xai svoEfcta), and shews 
us the means of doing this by the knowledge 
of God," (i. e., the Christian scheme, whose 
I author is God.) Ver. 4, '"By this knowledge 
we attain to pious and godlike dispositions, 
(®sla$ xoivuvoi tyvatios, as children resembling 
our Father,) and distinguish ourselves from the 
great mass of mankind, who live in immorali- 
ty." "Thus we are placed in a situation to 
practise all the Christian virtues, (ver. 5 — 7,) 
and are not apyoi ov&e axap7toi" (i. e., are al- 
ways employed in works of virtue, and dis 
posed to whatever is good.) 

Christianity therefore justly requires of its 
friends, to whom it gives such perfect instruc 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 41) 



tion as to the observance of the divine precepts, 
to maintain the most unsullied purity of charac- 
ter. John is fully justified in declaring (1 John, 
ii. 4,) that he is a liar who professes to be a 
friend and follower of Christ, and does not keep 
his commandments. The same writer justly 
remarks that the Christian who is in earnest in 
overcoming his sins, and who acts out of pure 
love to God and to Christ, will not find it diffi- 
cult to fulfil the commands of God, at IvtoXal 
wirtov fiaphicu oix elaiv ', 1 John, v. 3, coll. Matt. 
xi. 30. He therefore assures us, in entire con- 
formity with experience, that a true Christian, 
by his obedience to Christian rules, and by con- 
stant exercise, can advance so far, that virtue 
will become his confirmed habit, and the pre- 
ponderating disposition to sin will become sub- 
ordinate, ov Bvvatai, d/xapr dveiv, 1 John, iii. 
8, 9. 

Note. — Paul and the other apostles were ac- 
customed to connect the history of the person of 
Jesus Christ, in his humiliation and exaltation, 
with his doctrine. From this history they de- 
duce some of the advantages which we enjoy as 
Christians, and also some of our duties and the 
motives to the discharge of thern ; or they refer 
to this history in inculcating these duties, in 
order to render them more impressive. Thus 
they frequently ascribe to the sufferings and 
death of Christ a power to subdue ^sin, and to 
excite pious affections. An example of this is 
Heb. ix. 14, seq., "If even the blood of beasts 
took away external impurity, and rendered those 
w ? ho were expiated externally clean, according 
to the law of Moses, how much more must the 
blood of Christ purify us from sin" (dead 
works) — i. e., render us holy ; " that we may 
be placed in a situation to worship God in a 
manner acceptable to him." Still more clear 
is the passage 2 Cor. v. 15, "He died for all, 
that they should not live according to their own 
choice (laur'9), but according to the will and 
commands of Christ, who died for them." The 
love of Christ in offering up himself for them, 
should incite them to grateful love, and to will- 
ing obedience to his commands ; 1 Peter, i. 18, 
19, " Christ delivered us by his blood from an 
idolatrous and sinful course of life." There are 
many more passages of the same nature. 

From a comparison of these texts it is easy to 
see that no direct or miraculous physical agency 
is here ascribed to the death of Christ, nor any 
power derived from it which is peculiar and 
distinct from the influence of the doctrine re- 
specting Christ. The influence of the death of 
Christ in promoting a reformed and holy life, 
takes place in the following w 7 ay : — The consi- 
deration of the death of Christ promotes (a) ab- 
horrence and dread of sin, and regard for the 
divine law, while we see so severe a punish- 
ment inflicted upon Christ. In the death of 



Christ, then, we see sin, in all its dreadful con- 
sequences, and the inviolable sanctity of the 
divine law. (6) Love, gratitude, obedience to 
God and Christ, and zeal in obeying his com- 
mandments, are also effects of contemplating 
Christ's death. Thus 2 Cor. v. 15, coll. Gal^ 
ii. 20 ; 1 John, v. 3 ; Rom. viii. 3, 4, « Because 
Christ was punished for our sins, we ought, 
from gratitude, the more carefully to obey the 
precepts of the law," (hixaiuua vouov.) Here, 
then, the effect is produced upon our affections 
through our understanding. 

The apostles ascribe a similar influence in 
promoting reformation and holiness to the resur- 
rection of Christ and his exaltation in the hea- 
vens, 2 Cor. v. 15; Col. iii. 1 ; Heb. xii. 2. By 
the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, his 
whole doctrine, and all which he did for us, re- 
ceive new importance, and are rendered clear 
and certain; and if we confide in him, and obey 
his precepts, we may now look forward with 
cheerful anticipations to a reward in heaven. 
For (1) he has gone before to the place whither 
we shall follow him if we love him, and seek 
to resemble him, (John, xiv. 2, 3;) and (2) 
while We continue upon the earth he still cares 
for us, and is active in promoting our welfare. 
Christ himself frequently connects these two 
things, John, xv., xvi., xvii. Vide s. 112, II. 
What a powerful influence in promoting piety 
and holiness must these considerations exert 
upon the heart of every man who cordially be- 
lieves and embraces them ! 

II. Influence of Chrisfs Example in aiding the 

Practice of Virtue. 
There is a propensity to imitation implanted 
in all men. Good and evil examples often ex- 
ert an influence upon the heart indescribably 
great, and sometimes almost irresistible. This 
propensity, as well as the love of distinction, 
ought therefore to be turned to account in edu- 
cation. Good examples do far more to improve 
and ennoble the character, and to perfect holi- 
ness, than mere lessons and rules. Longum ei 
difficile iter est prsecepta, says Seneca, breve ci 
efficax per exempla. Such examples act more 
strongly and directly upon the senses, and ex- 
cite the heart to virtue and everything noble and 
great. 

The example of Jesus is held up for imitation 
everywhere in the New Testament, as the most 
perfect model of every virtue. It is made the 
indispensable duty of all his followers to con- 
form to it in all their conduct. Vide 1 John, 
ii. 6; iii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 11, "He has left us ex- 
ample (pattern, vrtoypapuov,) that we should 
follow his steps." But the example of Christ 
is recommended to us for imitation, not only ii 
respect to his general integrity, purity of mo 
rals, gnd entire blamelessncss, (in which h« 



412 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



was perfectly exemplary, and the only one in- 
deed who ever was so; vide s. 93, III.;) but 
also in respect to particular virtues, especially 
those which are more high and difficult, which 
require a great struggle and effort, such as pa- 
tience, trust in God, firmness in suffering, the 
practice of humility and self-denial. In these 
respects, Christ himself commends his example 
to the imitation of his followers. Vide 1 Pet. 
ii. 21 — 23 ; Phil. ii. 5, seq. \ffe have still fur- 
ther encouragement to imitate the example of 
Jesus by the reward bestowed upon him, the 
man Jesus, in consequence of his piety and vir- 
tue, which we also may expect to receive, so 
far as we are capable of it, if we follow him. 
Vide Phil, ubi supra, and Heb. xii. 2, 3. 

It is an excellent rule which is given by some 
of the ancient Greek philosophers, that in our 
whole life and in all our actions we should have 
the example of some great, wise, and virtuous 
man in view, and that we should imagine him 
to be the witness and overseer (custos et pceda- 
gogus} of all our conduct. They advised that 
we should do everything under the notice, as it 
were, of such an inspector, and inquire at every 
step what he would do or recommend in this 
case; would he approve or disapprove? Could 
I do or say this thing if he were present with- 
out blushing? &c. Epictetus (Enchir. c. 51) 
recommends Socrates and Zeno for models ; Se- 
neca (Ep. 11. Extra.), Cato, and Laelius. Chris- 
tians can select no greater and more perfect man 
to be the witness of their conduct and guide of 
their morals than Jesus. And we know, too, 
that we may not only imagine him to be the 
witness and judge of our conduct, but that he 
actually is so. He knows all our thoughts and 
actions, and will be the sole Judge of the living 
and the dead. So we are taught by Christ him- 
self in his discourses recorded in John, and by 
all the apostles. Both Christ and his apostles 
require Christians to do everything ev ovofiato 
"KpiGtov. 

The passage Heb. xii. 1, 2 deserves to be no- 
ticed among the many which speak of imitating 
the example of Christ. Paul first compares the 
firm and pious sufferers of antiquity, whose ex- 
ample in suffering the Christian ought to imi- 
tate, with spectators and witnesses, who look 
upon our race and contest, and encourage us to 
perseverance. Among these witnesses is Jesus, 
who far surpasses the rest, who is the best ex- 
ample of confidence in God, and of every virtue, 
and who constantly observes us, and will finally 
reward us if we follow him. 

But those only who possess the characte. de- 
scribed, s. 116, I., ad fcnem, are properly Capa- 
ole of imitating tnis example of Jesus. Men 
who have not felt the consciousness that their 
sins were forgiven, and have not been renewed 
in the temper of their mind, have no taste or 



capacity for this imitation of Christ. Nor can 
we properly require of them what they in this 
situation are incapable of performing. We can 
make them feel, however, if their moral sensi- 
bility is not entirely deadened, how far below 
this example they stand, and how good and sa- 
lutary it would be for them to imitate it. 



PART III. OF CHAPTER IV. 

ON THE PRESENT AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES 
OF THE WORK OF CHRIST. 



SECTION CXVIII. 

SCRIPTURAL TITLES OF THE SALVATION PROCURED 
BY CHRIST FOR MEN ; ITS GENERAL NATURE ; 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RE- 
SPECTING THE ABOLITION OF THE OLD-TESTA- 
MENT DISPENSATION BY CHRISTIANITY, AND 
THE ADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM IT TO THE 
WORLD. 

I. Scriptural Names of the Blessings of Christianity, 
and their Nature. 

Some of these names are literal, others figu- 
rative. The most common are the following — 
viz., EvTioyta, rims, denoting every kind of be- 
nefit, Ephes. i. 3 ; Gal. iii. 14. Xaptj, jn, ion, 
John, i. 16, "Through his infinite love we have 
obtained %dpiv avtl ^apttfoj," an undeserved bene- 
fit superior to the other, in opposition to the Mo- 
saic dispensation, (ver. 17,) which could not 
secure this forgiveness of sin, and the blessings 
connected with it, which are here intended by 
the word %dpLv. The word £u>rj is also fre- 
quently used, vita vere vitalis, happiness. Also 
£coo7toi,jto£ou,, £jjv, x. t. %., in opposition to drtco- 
%eia and ^avaroj, unhappiness, John, iii. 36 ; x. 
11 ; Ephes. ii. 5, where the figure is continued, 
» Through Christ he has vivified and raised us 
up," &c. 

The Jews had anciently very diverse opinions 
respecting the nature of the blessings to be ex- 
pected from Christ. Only a few of the better 
instructed conceived that these benefits were 
entirely of a spiritual nature. For such bless- 
ings the great mass had no taste. They expect- 
ed, for the most part, temporal blessings, and 
hoped, under the Messiah, to be rich, honourable 
and mighty. Vide s. 89. And these expecta- 
tions have prevailed in a large portion even of 
the Christian world. Accordingly, many, in 
direct opposition to the spirit of Christianity, 
have associated the promises of earthly good and 
temporal welfare, made under the Mosaic insti- 
tute, with the precepts of the New Testament. 
We may, indeed, hope and expect to obtain from 
God all that good, even of a temporal nature, ot 



STATE INTO WHICH MaN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 413 



which we are capable, and of which we stand 
in need. But through Christ, and observance of 
his precepts, we cannot hope to obtain earthly 
good. For the design of his religion is to with- 
draw us from earth and sense, to improve and 
ennoble the heart, and to procure the enjoyment 
of high spiritual blessedness ; Philippians, iii. 
14, 17, 20. On this ground, therefore, the Jew- 
ish idea of the coming of a millenial kingdom 
of Christ upon the earth is entirely objection- 
able. The apostles never indulge in such ex- 
pectations, but take every opportunity to con- 
tradict them. They call those who entertain 
such ideas oapxixoi, persons who adhere to what 
is sensible and exterior, have no taste for what 
is spiritual, and are not therefore real disciples 
of Jesus. Hence Paul says, Ephes. i. 3, " God 
has blessed us, through Christ, rtdav] svhayla 
tCve v(JLO,t ixq iv ETtoupavcotj." ILvei\ua'tix6$ is 
here opposed to capxixoc,, and implies that the 
blessings spoken of are not designed for the 
body and the senses, but for the mind. The 
phrase 'Ev fotj irtovpavlois (sc. ■tonoi^ vide verse 
20; ii. 6, 12) does not signify in the Christian 
church, but denotes, literally, the blessings 
which we shall enjoy in heaven, which is our 
home, where we are citizens, (not in the visible 
world.) Hence in Heb. viii. 6, he calls the 
blessings which are bestowed upon us through 
Christ, in comparison with the promises made 
under the Mosaic dispensation, xpsCttova dyo&a. 
In Heb. vii. 19, he says, that there is through 
Christianity, irtsioaycdy/i xpeirtovos e%7ti,$o$, (i. e. 
it inspires the hope of more great and distin- 
guished divine favours,) since the Mosaic insti- 
tute is removed. 

The blessings bestowed upon us through 
Christ are commonly divided into general or 
public, (such as relate to the whole human spe- 
cies.) and particular, privata, (such as relate to 
each individual Christian.) Among the former 
is, as the New Testament everywhere shews, 
the abolition of Judaism, (the ancient institute,) 
and the establishment of a new dispensation 
and institute, by which all the nations of the 
earth might be united in one common religion. 
We shall first treat of the removal of the ancient 
church of God, and of the establishment of the 
new ; and then of the particular benefits of 
Christianity. 

II. The Abolition of the Mosaic Institute, and the 
Union of Jews and Gentiles in one common Re- 
ligion. 

(1) The Israelitish constitution and religion 
(vouo$) were only temporary and national. They 
were designed, in their first origin, only for a 
barbarous and rude people, destitute of moral 
cultivation. But the human race was not des- 
tined to remain always in a state of infancy ; 
and as soon as men were prepared for a more 



high, perfect, and spiritual instruction, that more 
imperfect kind, intended for beginners, would 
of course be omitted. The Jewish institute 
was designed to be only preparatory ; such is 
the uniform doctrine of the apostles, especially 
of Paul. Vide the Introduction, s. 12, where 
we have cited the most important texts, which 
are principal^ contained in the epistles to the 
Galatians and Hebrews. Now, therefore, ac- 
cording to their instruction, Christ had abolish- 
ed the law, (Christ himself, for good reasons, 
gave at firsfconly hints which led to this con- 
clusion — e. g., John, iv. 21 — 24; x. 16. He 
left the full development of this doctrine for his 
disciples.) Rom. x. 4, ri%og toy vofiov Xptcwds-— 
i. e., titos i<j>Ep£ tc, voug>. Heb. vii. 18, 19 ; Gal. 
iv. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 14, 15. According to these 
and other passages Christ has freed his follow- 
ers from obligation to observe the law of Moses ; 
and the punishments threatened in it do not re- 
late to those who believe in Christ. Vide Gal. 
iii. 13, Xptofoj t^yopaGsv i^uaj ix trfi xatdpas 
tov vo^ov — i. e., from the punishments which 
the Mosaic law threatens. 

Here two questions arise— viz., 

(cr) How are w T e to understand those texts 
which teach that the Mosaic law and institute 
are removed and declared to be null by the cru- 



•Jfixic 



Such texts are, Gal. iii. 13; Eph. ii. 



16; iii. 15; and especially Col. ii. 14, "He 
took it away, and nailed it to his cross," — by 
his crucifixion he declared it invalid. The apos- 
tles everywhere teach that the new dispensation 
through Christ (xaivq hia^xr^ commenced at 
his death, and was by that event solemnly sanc- 
tioned and introduced. Eph. v. 25, 26; Heb. 
xiii. 20; ix. 14, 15, where the preparatory eco 
nomy of Moses, consisting in sacrifices, is com 
pared with the preparatory economy of Christ, 
consisting in the sacrifice of himself. Christ 
himself calls his blood which was shed, al/xa 
xojwvfi Sta^xrj, Matthew, xxvi. 28. Conse- 
quently, the ancient Israelitish dispensation 
ceased with the death of Christ, because at 
that event the new dispensation commenced. 
We see by this what value was attached to the 
death of Christ, and how everything in this new 
dispensation through Christ proceeds from it. 
The day of his death is the consecration-day of 
the new covenant. The new covenant is not 
dated from the time when he began to teach, 
but from the time of his death. 

(b) Are all the Mosaic laws abolished by 
Christ, and no longer obligatory upon Chris- 
tians'? From the passages cited we must cer- 
tainly answer in the affirmative. But the laws 
of Moses are of different kinds; and many of 
the older theologians maintained that Christ 
abolished only the ceremonial and civil law of 
the Israelites, and not the moral law, especially 
that contained in the decalogue. But in the 
2 m2 



414 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



passages of the New Testament which treat of 
the abolition of the law there is no allusion to 
this threefold distinction. Paul includes the 
whole under vopos, Romans, vi. 14 ; Gal. iii. 19, 
25. Besides, many of the laws of Moses, which 
are truly moral, are expressed and stated in such 
a way as to shew plainly that they were de- 
signed, in that form, only for the circumstances 
and wants of the Israelites at the time being — 
e. g., "Honour thy father and thy mother, that 
thy days may be long in the land" (Palestine;) 
and the law respecting the Sabbath. 

The mistake upon which this limitation is 
founded may be pointed out. Moral laws are 
•n themselves universally obligatory, and unal- 
terable as the laws of nature. There are, doubt- 
less, many such moral laws in the code of 
Moses, as well as of Solon, Lycurgus, and 
others. But they are not binding upon Chris- 
tians because they are parts of the Mosaic code, 
and stand in the decalogue, but (a) because 
they are founded in the constitution of human 
nature, which God himself has given us, and 
are therefore laws of nature, and (b) because 
Christ has commanded us to obey them. In 
the same way, we observe the moral laws which 
stand in the codes of heathen legislators — Con- 
fucius, Solon, Lycurgus, &c. ; not because they 
have given them, but because these laws are 
universal, and founded in our very nature. 
When a ruler introduces a new statute-book 
into his dominions, the old book, after its rejec- 
tion, is no longer the rule by which right and 
wrong are determined, although much in it 
still remains true. Just such is the case here. 
Morus well observes (p. 243, infra), that Chris- 
tians observe the moral precepts in the Mosaic 
code, quia ratio dictat, et Christi dodrina propo- 
nit, proponendoque confrmat. Judsei vero tene- 
bantur ea observare, quia ratio dictabat, et Moses, 
jussu divino, prsescripserat. 

In this way we may understand the declara- 
tion of Christ, Matthew, v. 17 — 19, "that he 
was not come to destroy the law and the pro- 
phets, (yopov xal rtpo9-/jra$,) and that all the di- 
vine commands contained in them must be 
punctually obeyed." This does not conflict 
with the doctrine of Paul. Christ was neither 
able nor willing to abrogate these universal 
laws, because they were given by God for all 
men ; not, however, because they were given 
by Moses. It was, on the contrary, the design 
of Christ still more to illustrate these laws, and 
to recommend obedience to them by his doc- 
trine and example. 

The question, Whether the ten command- 
ments cf M jses should be retained in the moral 
instruction of the common people and of the 
young, has been much controverted of late. 
(Cf. Thorn. Boclo, Etwas uber den Decalogus, 
oder, von der Verbindlichkeit der zehn Gebote 



fur die Christen; Schmalkalden, 1789, 8vo; 
Hufnagel, Ueber den Religionsunterricht, nach 
den zehn Geboten; Zacharia, Bibl. Theol. th. 
4; Less, Doderlein, Reinhard, in their Chris- 
tian ethics.) From what has been already said, 
it is plain that the Ten Commandments are not 
obligatory because they are laws given by 
Moses. They are not therefore, of necessity, 
fundamental in Christian instruction. No in- 
jury, however, is to be apprehended from mak- 
ing them so, any more than in the first Christian 
church, if the manner in which Christ and the 
apostles allude to the moral precepts of Moses 
and the Old Testament be only made our model. 
The intelligent and conscientious teacher will 
be very cautious in declaring to the common 
people and the young that the Ten Command- 
ments are abrogated, since he might be easily 
understood to mean, that the duties enjoined in 
them are no longer obligatory. The instruction 
which God has given through Jesus, respecting 
the moral law and our duties, is much more 
perfect and extensive than that which was 
given, or could be given, through Moses. Our 
hearers should therefore be led directly to this 
more copious fountain of knowledge. This will 
not prevent our connecting instruction from the 
Old Testament with that from the New, as 
Christ and the apostles did, especially since 
the history of the Old Testament so well eluci- 
dates and explains many points of duty. 

In those churches in which the decalogue is 
incorporated, by their very constitution, into the 
system of instruction, it is neither necessary nor 
advisable for the teacher to urge the discontinu- 
ance of this custom. By this course he would 
do more hurt than good. He will proceed more 
properly and judiciously by confirming, com- 
pleting, and enlarging from the New Testa- 
ment all the particular moral precepts contained 
in the decalogue, making the decalogue, in this 
way, serve only as a guide to Christian instruc- 
tion. He will do well also to connect with or 
append to the catechism a good outline of Chris- 
tian doctrines and morals, exhibited in a natural 
order, and in an intelligible and practical man- 
ner, according to the holy scriptures. 

(2) It was the great object of Jesus to esta- 
blish an universal religion, by which all nations 
of the earth might be united in one common 
worship of God. Vide John, x. 16, " One fold 
and one Shepherd." Cf. Reinhard, Ueber den 
Plan des Stifters der christlichen Religion. But 
this plan in its whole extent could not be car- 
ried into effect, nor indeed was it designed to 
be, until after his departure from the earth. 
Vide John, xii. 32. In order to render this 
plan practicable, it was essential that the Mo- 
saic institute should be abrogated, and declared 
to be thenceforward abolished. Without this, 
Jews and Christians could never be brought 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 415 



together, or united in a common religious so- 
ciety. The Jews were distinguished by na- 
tional pride and contempt for all the rest of 
mankind. They considered themselves exclu- 
sively as a holy people, beloved of God. All 
other nations seemed to them to be desecrated, 
and hated by God. They exhibit, as Tacitus 
says (Hist. v. 5), Odium hostile adversus o?nnes 
gentes; and, as Paul says, 1 Thess. ii. 15, a 
universal misanthropy, rtdtfLv dj/^pcortotj tvavtioi. 
And what was the occasion of this hatred and 
separation? Their misunderstanding the Mo- 
saic laws, and putting a false interpretation 
upon them. 

In opposition to this, the great principles of 
Christianity are, the love of God and universal 
philanthropy, and that all upright and true wor- 
shippers of God, of whatever nation they may 
be, are equally acceptable to him, have equal 
rights, and an equal share in the blessings of 
Christianity, John, iv. 21 — 24; Acts, x. 35; 
Romans, x. 12 ; Gal. v. 6. This assimilation 
and union, by which all distinction between 
Jew and heathen would cease, could not be 
brought about except by the abrogation of the 
Mosaic institute, which was designed by God 
to be only a preparatory economy. One of the 
principal passages relating to this subject is 
Ephes. ii. 12 — 19, coll. Col. i. 21, seq. ; Ephes. 
ii. 10, seq. " Christ has united the two* (Jews 
and heathen), has done away the cause of their 
enmity, has established harmony, brought them 
both together into one society, and given them 
citizenship in the kingdom of God ; this he did 
by removing the wall of partition ^aoTfoL%ov 
tov typayuov, ver. 14), that separated between 
heathen and Jews, and prevented their becom- 
ing one people." This wall of partition was the 
Mosaic law, as he himself explains it, ver. 15, 
v6(io$ tvtoxav. This he calls, in ver. 14, £#^pa, 
the cause of enmity. 

SECTION CXIX. 

THE HAPPINESS WHICH CHRISTIANS OBTAIN IN 
THIS LIFE FROM CHRIST. 

We treat now of the particular benefits of 
which every professor of Christianity partakes 
when he performs the prescribed conditions. 
Vide s. 118,1. ad fin. As our existence is com- 
posed of two very unequal portions, these bless- 
ings are likewise of two kinds. We enjoy some 
of them even in the present life, and others not 
before we enter the future world ; s. 120. It 
must always be borne in remembrance, that the 
apostles derived all these spiritual advantages, 
of whatever kind, from Christ, and that they 
connect these, as well as the rewards of the 
pious (natural and positive), in such a way with 
the history of Jesus, that they represent him as 
ihe procurer of them all. This method of in- 



struction is perfectly suited the wants of man- 
kind. General truths become much more intel- 
ligible, clear, and certain, by being placed ip 
connexion with true history, from which they 
receive a positive sanction. We find that the 
ancient teachers of religion among the heathen 
pursued the same course. And this is a proof that 
they better understood the constitution of man 
than those Christian teachers who would sepa- 
rate everything historical from the exhibition of 
Christian truth. Vide s. 108. 

The spiritual blessedness which believers in 
Christ receive through him, even in the present 
life, consists, according to the doctrine of the 
New Testament, in the following particulars : — 

I. Assurance of the undeserved Benevolence, the Con* 
stant Favour, and Paternal Love of God. 

The apostle places this class of spiritual be- 
nefits in the closest connexion with the whole 
history of Christ, representing them always as 
the fruit of the atonement. Their doctrine is, that 
whoever is sure of the forgiveness of his sins (and 
this assurance he receives through the atonement 
of Christ, or through faith in Christ as a Saviour 
and expiator), and, under the guidance and as- 
sistance of God and Christ, lives conformably 
to the divine precepts (which he learns from the 
Christian doctrine and from the example of 
Christ), such an one is capable of receiving the 
divine blessings which are promised to such, and 
he can at all times be assured of the favour and 
paternal love of God ; he will be treated by God 
and Christ as a friend, and made partaker of 
their happiness, so far as he is susceptible of it. 

Various figures and expressions are used in 
the scriptures to represent these fruits of the 
atonement, and of faith in it. But they all con- 
vey one and the same idea. They ought not 
therefore, in systems of theology, to be sepa- 
rately considered, in different chapters or arti- 
cles. The following expressions are some of 
the most common — viz., sonship, the right of 
adoption, election, access to God, and union with 
him. We shall now briefly explain these terms. 

(1) Tto^Wa ®sov. This is a term which was 
originally borrowed from the Israelitish church. 
In the ancient languages the phrase, children of 
God, denotes the peculiar friends, the favourites 
of the Deity. The Israelites received this name, 
and also that of firstborn, to denote their pre- 
eminence above other people. Vide Ex. iv. 22, 
23. Hence in Rom. ix. 4, the Israelites are 
said to possess vlo^eata — i. e., the rights of the 
favourite people of God. This term is trans- 
ferred to true Christians, in order to denote the 
relation which subsists between them and God. 
Those who endeavour to resemble God in their 
conduct, and who faithfully obey his command- 
ments, have a higher capacity for happiness and 
reward than others who are wanting in these 



416 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



traits of character. We hence conclude, with 
reason, that God loves and favours them more 
than others who are unlike him. One who loves 
God as a son loves his father, and seeks to re- 
semble him as a dutiful son seeks to resemble 
his father, will be loved by God in return, as a 
dutiful son is loved by his father. All the ad- 
vantages and spiritual benefits, therefore, which 
we obtain through faith in Christ, and obedience 
to his precepts, are considered as belonging to 
vlc&eoia,, because they are all proofs of the pater- 
nal love of God. Vide Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; iii. 20 ; Rom. 
viii. 15 (rtf'fx^auto^tftaj, a filial disposition), and 
ver. 23 (the reward of Christians); Ephes. i. 5; 
1 John, iii. 1, 2. This right of adoption we owe 
to Christ, as the author of Christianity and our 
Saviour. Those only possess this right who 
believe in him as 'Kpiatos and 2W??p. Hence 
John declares (i. 12), "He gives to all who 
believe on him the privilege (ffoucaa) of consi- 
dering themselves the children of God" which 
privilege they obtain, according to ver. 13, not 
by descent from pious ancestors, according to 
the Jewish prejudice, but solely by true faith in 
Jesus Christ, and from the holiness and like- 
ness to God arising from and connected with 
faith. 

The apostles give this appellation to the sin- 
cere worshippers of God the more readily and 
frequently on account of the name of Christ, 
Tt6$ ©for. God treats Christians as his peculiar 
friends on account of Christ, who is his most 
beloved and chief favourite, 7tpu>t6toxo$, fiovo- 
ysvfy. Vide Gal. iii. 26, 27 ; iv. 4—7. 

Pious Christians are thus called the children 
of God in a twofold sense: (a) because they 
love God as their Father, and obey him from 
love; (b) because they, on account of this dis- 
position, are loved in return by God, as obedient 
children, and so obtain from him forgiveness of 
sins and other Christian blessings. Both of 
these ideas are sometimes implied at the same 
time in this term. 

[In the older writers of the English church 
(as well as in the ancient fathers, and the most 
devout and spiritual writers of other nations,) 
we frequently meet with the idea, that the rela- 
tion existing between man and God, denoted 
by somhip, is not merely a relation of feeling, 
but also of nature. This is sometimes illustrated 
by saying that we are not adopted by God into 
his family in the same manner in which a 
wealthy benefactor sometimes adopts a destitute 
and orphan child, conferring upon him great 
privileges, and giving him the name of son, to 
which he has no natural title. In such a case, 
this name would denote only that, the per- 
son on whom it was conferred held the same 
place in the affections of the benefactor, and 
exercised in return the same feelings of grati- 
tude and dutiful reverence as an own son would 



in similar circumstances. And this seems to be 
the more general sense in which this appella- 
tion was used in reference to the friends and 
worshippers of God before the Christian dispen- 
sation, and to those few who, like the devout 
Cornelius, are found fearing God even in the 
midst of heathenism. But this term, when 
applied to believers in the New Testament, has 
a superior meaning, and points to the gift of the 
Spirit of adoption, which, in the highest sense, is 
peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and con- 
sequent upon the completion of Christ's work. 
By being born of God, and receiving this peculiar 
grace, the Spirit of adoption, believers become 
partakers of " the divine nature," and possessed 
of an internal principle, the fruits of which are 
the love and obedience in which the essential 
nature of sonship is sometimes placed, but 
which are in reality only the signs or effects of 
that new life in which it really consists. The 
possession of this Spirit by Christ, though in a 
far higher degree of intimacy, seems to be one 
of the grounds of his bearing the title of Son. 
And the manner of the Spirit's presence and 
operation in believers is compared by the sacred 
writers with the hypostatical union of the divine 
and human natures in Christ. These ideas 
may be, indeed, carried so far as to involve 
error. But it is an important question whether 
they have not a scriptural basis. Is the compa- 
rative infrequency, in our later theological 
writings, of these ideas, which were so current 
in the fathers of the English church, the result 
of an advance or a decline in theological 
science] — Tr.] 

(2) All the words which literally signify to 
choose and elective frequently employed in order 
to denote the distinguished favour and love of 
God to his people. We are accustomed to 
select from many things that which is the best, 
most desirable, and valuable. Hence to say a 
thing is chosen is often the same as to say it is 
valuable or useful — e. g., cxevos ex%oy^, Acts, 
ix. 15. Now, because our love rests upon those 
objects which appear to us good and valuable, 
the words which in the oriental languages sig- 
nify to select, signify also to love, to wish well to 
any one, to benefit him, in a distinguished man- 
ner. In the same way is nra used in Hebrew — 
e. g., Deut. iv. 57, where 3HN is added. The LXX. 
sometimes render it by the word ix%iysa^rcu, as 
in the passage cited, and sometimes by evSo- 
xslv and wya7tdv. The New Testament employs 
the words ixheyso^ai and £x%sxt6$ in the same 
manner. In the Old Testament, the Israelites 
were denominated, by way of eminence, the 
chosen or beloved (on-po) of God. This term was 
then transferred to Christians, who become wor* 
thy of the love of God by faith in Jesus Christ, 
and by conduct conformed entirely to the divine 
will — e. g., Matt. xxiv. 24; 1 Pet. ii. 9. 'Exai- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 417 



ytc&ou is therefore Christianum facere, as 1 Cor. 
i. 27, 23. In the same way the verba cogno- 
scendi, in the ancient languages mean to love, 
to be friendly to any one. Thus Christians are 
said to be yw)d§&vts$ vrib Qsov, amici Deo. Gal. 
iv. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 3, coll. Ps. lv. 14. 

(3) The terms which denote the drawing near 
of God to men, or union with him. God was 
conceived of by the ancient w^orld as corporeal, 
and as resembling man. Thus many believed 
that lie was literally and actually more present 
in one place than in another, and that he ap- 
proached the place where he wished to exert 
his power, and that otherwise he withdrew or 
absented himself. Vide s. 23, II. From such 
conceptions a multitude of figurative expressions 
have arisen in all the ancient languages. These 
expressions appear very gross and unw r orthy of 
God. At first, however, they were literally 
understood by the great mass of mankind. But 
afterwards, as the views of men became en- 
larged and improved, they were understood figu- 
ratively, and were interpreted in such a way as to 
be consistent with the divine perfections. The 
terms, the approach, or coming of God to a?iy 
one, the connexion of God with any one, denote 
a high degree of his favour and love, and of the 
active display of these feelings, his assistance 
and agency ; and so the wiihdrawment of God, 
and his forsaking any one, denote, on the other 
hand, the withdrawing of his love and the bene- 
fits resulting from it. Thus ra~\p denotes the 
friendship of God, Ps. lxxiii. 28, coll. Zech. ii. 
10, 11. And thus Christ promises to his disciples 
that he and his Father would come and make 
their abode with them — i. e., would be always 
connected with them, and never withhold from 
them their special assistance and protection ; in 
short, would be to them what one friend is 
to another in guiding and upholding him ; ver. 
21, i[i$av%£vv. Thus Jesus consoles his dis- 
ciples who were lamenting his departure. Cf. 
Rev. iii. 20, and Matt, xxviii. 20. The terms, 
iritftj £<f[isv (or fiivofiev) iv ^9, ^eoj iatlv 
(or (i£vst) iv vfiiv, which occur John xvii. 21, 
and 1 John, iii. 24, &c, denote, in the same 
way, a high degree of the special favour and 
friendship of God, agreement of disposition 
with him, and his assistance connected with 
his favour. Cf. John, xv. 1, "Whoever is and 
remains faithful and devoted to him shall be 
treated by him in the same manner in return ; 
he shall be united to him, as the branch is 
united to the vine." 

From these and similar passages the mystics 
have taken occasion to speak of a secret union 
(unio mystica) with God and Christ. They 
commonly express this by the terms, the in- 
dwelling of God in the heart, sinking down into 
God, the communication of God, the enjoyment 
53 



of him, &c. &c. Some of them associated very 
gross conceptions with these phrases ; cf. s. 23. 
After the eleventh and twelfth centuries such, 
language became more common in the Western 
church. It was understood by some in a literal 
manner, and in a sense unworthy of the charac- 
ter of God ; by others, in a manner entirely con- 
formed to the Bible, but yet sometimes too indis- 
tinctly. Luther, Melancthon, and other reform- 
ers, retained the phraseology of the ancient mys- 
tics, and it was adopted into the systems of theo- 
logy. Some made a special article on the subject 
of the mystical union ,■ though Melancthon and 
others took pains to controvert the gross ideas 
of the fanatical mystics. Hence it came to 
pass that this phraseology was thus used mostly 
in homiletical and catechetical discourses, and 
that formerly many sermons and books werp 
written upon this subjoct. 

In the holy scriptures these terms denote some 
times the agreement of the dispositions of thv 
pious with the law of God; sometimes the pe- 
culiar favour and friendship of God towards 
them, and the special proofs of it, and also their 
enjoyment and feeling of the tokens of this 
friendship. 

There is no reason, therefore, for making a 
particular article in the systems of theology 
upon this subject. Caution, however, should 
be used in Christian instruction to prevent the 
notion that there is anything properly miraculous 
in this matter which is not according to the 
Bible. This caution is the more necessary, as 
many enthusiastic parties frequently employ 
such expressions with regard to these divine in- 
fluences, and give them such a meaning as im- 
plies an immediate illumination independent of 
the holy scriptures. So the Quakers and Bohe- 
mians. And it has sometimes happened thai 
well-meaning though unenlightened Christians 
have received the doctrine of these sectarians as 
scriptural because it was expressed in scriptural 
phraseology. 

Another reason for calling these proofs of the 
love of God, and the experience of them, unio 
mystica, is, that they are inward, and enjoyed by 
spiritual fellowship, and are unseen and disre- 
garded by those who have no taste or capacity 
for such experiences. A satisfactory and full 
explanation of these feelings cannot be given to 
those who have no experience of them, as is the 
case with all matters of experience. Paul said, 
very truly, Col. iii. 3, " Your (the true Chris- 
tian's) life in God, (i. e., your divine life, which 
is acceptable to God — your happy life as Chris- 
tians,) like the present life of Christ in heaven, 
in the full enjoyment of happiness, is concealed 
(xixpvTtiai) from the great multitude of men;" 
they do not regard it as happy or desirable be- 
cause they have no taste for it. 



413 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



II. Happiness and Peace of Mind, and a joyful 
Prospect of the Future. 

We owe to Christ, according to the doctrine 
of the New Testament, 

(1) Inward peace and happiness. These 
spring from the firm conviction that through 
Christ we have obtained from God the forgive- 
ness of sin, and from the joyful consciousness 
of the power of God, and his approbation of our 
feelings and conduct. This state of mind is 
frequently expressed in the New Testament by 
TtaijfaGta,, cheerful confidence in God, in opposition 
to an anxious and slavish fear of punishment. 
Thus Heb. iv. 16, 7tpoaepx^ U8 ^ a y-ttQ* rta/jj^cruxj 
t? 9 ^pdj/9 trji zuprtos, " We may now with joyful 
confidence expect unmingled good from God, 
and supplicate him for it." 1 John, iv. 17, 
7ia^j7]Gtav s%£vp iv quipq zptfffcos, to be able to 
look forward to the day of judgment with cheer- 
fulness. Cf. 1 John, iii. 20, 21, peace of God, 
or with God. Rom. v. 1, 2, Etpjjvjfv rtpoj rbv 
®iov £%ouev, 8ixcutd$ivt£$ — 7tpoffaycoy/)v ?cj z^P LV 
©sou, &c. Ver. 11, " We can at all times rejoice 
in the assurance of divine favour, (x(w%au£§a iv 
©£9 ;) and this, Christ by his atonement has en- 
abled us to do." By this assurance and confi- 
dence the soul of the true Christian comes to 
such a firm, steadfast, and composed frame, as 
enables him to endure unmoved the greatest 
trials. He is deeply convinced that the greatest 
adversities contribute to his highest good, and 
are the means which God, as a kind father, em- 
ploys for the welfare of his children, whom he is 
educating not merely for this short life, but fur 
eternity, Rom. v. 3 ; viii. 28, 32. 

(2) The most cheerful prospect of the future, or 
a certain hops of our future blessedness. One 
great object of Christian instruction is, to 
awaken, confirm, and cherish this hope. It is 
always used as a motive to diligence in holi- 
ness, to self-denial, and to steadfastness in all 
the sufferings and adversities of the present life. 
Rom. v. 2, i%7ti$ §oir t s ®sov — i. e., of the divine 
'rewards. Rom. viii. 17, 18, 24, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 
3; 2 Cor. vii. 1, 4, 8, seq. All this is every- 
where connected with the history of the person 
of Jesus in his humiliation and exaltation : and 
confirmation of the views now given is drawn 
from his sufferings and death, as Heb. ix. 15; 
from his resurrection and subsequent exaltation, as 
John, vii. 28; xvii. 24; 1 Thess. v. 8—10. By 
his death we are delivered from death. His re- 
surrection and his exalted station are pledges to 
us that he will actually perform all that he pro- 
mised, and will bring us to that place to which 
he has gone before — to our proper heme, and our 
Father's house. 

We ought rot, however, in hope of the future 
world, to forget the present. W \ should re- 



member that God designs that we should live 
for the present world, and that our happiness 
hereafter depends upon our good improvement 
of the time now allotted us. Faith in Christ 
and grateful obedience to all his requirements 
should render us happy even here. 1 Tim. iv. 8, 
sviifieia — irtosyyshiav (t££t) ^rfi tr\^ vvv xal tr^ 
H£*Jtova-/j$. This cheerfulness and joy which 
so visibly distinguish the pious Christian, and 
more than ever in the midst of sufferings and 
adversities, often compel those who are without 
to wish that they were as pious and as enviably 
happy as they see him to be. Many are in the 
case of King Agrippa, (Acts, xxvi. 28,) who con- 
fessed "that but little was wanting to persuade him 
to become a Christian. But they stop here, be- 
cause they are unwilling to employ the simple 
means necessary for obtaining the Christian cha- 
racter, and dread to sacrifice their sinful pro- 
pensities. 

SECTION CXX. 

THE HAPPINESS WHICH CHRISTIANS OBTAIN 
THROUGH CHRIST IN THE FUTURE LIFE. 

This subject also is placed in the New Testa- 
ment in the most intimate connexion with the 
history of the person of Jesus Christ, and is de- 
duced from it. He is the procurer of this happi- 
ness. This subject needs only to be briefly and 
summarily stated here; since the scripture doc- 
trine respecting the happy and unhappy condi- 
tion of men after death will be more fully exhi- 
bited, s. 147, et seq. 

I. Our Deliverance from Death obtained through 
Christ. 

Death is always represented in the New Tes- 
tament as the effect and consequence of sin. 
Now since Christ has delivered from the conse- 
quences and punishment of sin, he must also be 
regarded as the cause of our deliverance from 
death. The resurrection of the dead — i. e., the 
complete restoration of the whole man, both as 
to soul and body, is a blessing for which the 
human race is indebted, according to the New 
Testament, to Christ. Vide John, xi. 25 ; 1 Cor. 
xv. 22. The resurrection of the dead was gene- 
rally believed among the Jews at the time of 
Christ and the apostles, and only the Sadducees 
denied it. But Christianity gave to this doctrine 
a new support and sanction. It now became 
intimately connected with the religion of Jesus 
and with the history of his person, like every- 
thing else relating to the deliverance and welfare 
of man. 

(I) Christ and the apostles have the merit, 
which is unquestionably great, of casting new 
light upon the doctrine of life beyond the grave, 
and the future restoration of the whole man, and 



1 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 419 



giving it a certainty it never had before. They 
exhibited this truth in such a way that on one 
side it serves for the comfort and consolation of 
mankind, and on the other, to urge powerfully 
to the practice of goodness and holiness in the 
present life. Vide Heb. ii. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 

13, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 30, 57, 58; Acts, xxiv. 
14 — 16. Paul therefore says, very truly, 2 
Tim. i. 10, that Christ is ^wtftcras ^rjv xal 
d^apfft'av 6ta tov svayyshtov — i. e., by his in- 
structions he brought to light, and clearly and 
infallibly revealed, the doctrine of a happy im- 
mortality. 

(2) But this doctrine is intimately connected 
in the New Testament with the history of the 
person of Christ. According to the New Testa- 
ment we are indebted for our hope of a future 
restoration to life by the resurrection, 

(a) To the death of Christ. For the deliver- 
ance of man from every kind of misery, and 
from all the punishment of sin, and consequently 
from death, is always derived in the New Tes- 
tament from the death of Jesus. Vide s. 111. 
The clearest passage of this kind is Hebrews, ii. 

14, " Christ became man in order to take away 
(tva xatapyriGT]) by his death the power of him 
who is the author of death, the devil" (from whom 
death and every calamity is derived, since he is 
regarded as the author of sin, which brought 
death in its train. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 56.) Here 
belongs also the passage, Rom. v. 14 — 19, where 
Christ is compared with Adam. Adam brought 
death into the world by his disobedience, Christ 
brought in life by his obedience, (v7taxor t , willing 
obedience to the divine will, especially to the 
divine purpose that he should suffer and die for 
us.) The same thing is briefly expressed, 1 Cor. 
xv. 21, thus : — " As Adam was the cause of the 
death of all men, so all owe it to Christ that they 
shall be raised at the last." This corresponds 
with the language, ver. 55, $dvato$ xats7t6^tr] eij 
wjcoj, death overcome (by him), henceforth ceases ,• 
and also with 2 Tim. i. 10, xatdpyrjoa$ tov $dva- 
r'xtv, taking away the power of death, vanquishing 
it — i. e., freeing men from it, and awaking them 
to eternal life. And in the Revelation of John, 
the victory of Christ is made to consist princi- 
pally in the fact that through him death ceased to 
be ; Rev. xxi. 4, $dvato$ ovx tativ ttt, or, was cast 
into the lake of fire, xx. 14 — i. e., was removed 
and able no more to hurt. 

Note. — The Bible mentions it as one of the 
olessings resulting from the work of Christ, that 
all mankind will be raised by him — e. g., 1 Cor. 
xv. 21, 22, coll. John, v. 21, seq., and conse- 
quently the wicked as well as the good. Some 
theologians, indeed, have objected to considering 
resurrection in the case of the impenitent as a 
blessing, and have rather regarded it as a punish- 
ment. But a great value is ascribed in the Bible 



to mere existence, even in the present life, where 
we live in the midst of so many evils and adver- 
sities. Life in itself is always more valuable 
than non-existence, or annihilation; although it 
seems that for some men it would have been 
better never to have been born ; as Christ him- 
self says, doubtless in the language of a current 
proverb, Matt. xxvi. 24. Now although the 
wicked are to be punished in the future world 
through their own fault, the preservation of their 
life does not on this account cease to be a bless- 
ing; still less is it changed itself into a punish- 
ment, by the punishments which will be conse- 
quent upon it. The ancient fathers, Athana- 
sius, Augustine, Theodoret, Hilarius, and others, 
understood the subject very much in this way. 

(b) To the resurrection of Christ. Morus, p. 
175, s. 3. 

The New Testament teaches, that from the 
resurrection of Christ we may and should argue 
the possibility and reality of our own. Was God 
able to raise Christ, and did he actually raise 
him, from the dead ; he is both able to raise us, 
and will actually do so. The resurrection of 
Christ is therefore a sensible confirmation of the 
doctrine of our resurrection. So Paul argues, 
1 Cor. xv. 12 — 20. In Acts, iv. 2, it is said that 
the apostles taught through Jesus the resurrection 
of the dead — i. e., by his example. As God 
raised up Christ in order to confer upon him a 
reward in heaven, we are to share in the same 
reward and happiness, and to be with Christ. 
We can therefore be certain of our resurrection ; 
1 Thess. iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14; 1 Peter, i. 21. 
Christ is therefore called drtapx^] xixoi/xrj^sviov, 
1 Cor. xv. 20, 23, and Ttpcototoxos ex tu>v vtxouv, 
the first that rose, Col. i. 18, because he must be 
iv 7tddi 7tpu>tsvu>v. Cf. progr. " de nexu resurrec- 
tionis Jesu Christi mortuis et mortuorum," irt 
scripta varii argumenti, N. ix. 

(c) To the more perfect condition of Christ in 
heaven. Christ and the apostles everywhere 
teach that it is the will of God that Christ should 
continue and complete in heaven the great work 
which he commenced on earth for the restoration 
of the human race. He has therefore empowered 
Christ to raise the dead and to hold a day of judg- 
ment, with which Christ will accomplish his 
great work for the good of man. He himself de- 
clares this, John, v. 21, 25 — 29, and represents 
this charge as entrusted to him by the Father. 
In John, xi. 25, he says, £yw tijiu rj dvdotacsis xal 
rj %c*r t — i. e., the cause of the resurrection and 
vivification of men, he to whom they are indebted 
for this ; cf. ver. 26. Paul says, Rom. xiv. 9, that 
by his death and resurrection he has shewn 
himself to be Lord (xvpitvuv) of the dead and 
living; and 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26, he will conquer 
and disable death, the last enemy of the human 
race. Cf. s. 98, 99. 



420 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



[I. Our Delivet unce from Punishment after Death, 
and our Happiness in the Future World obtained 
through Christ. 

The consequences and punishment of sin 
continue even into the future world ; and it is 
there first, according to the scriptures, that the 
positive punishments of sin are completely in- 
flicted. Now Christ has not only freed us from 
these punishments (eternal condemnation) on 
certain conditions to be fulfilled by us, (vide 
Romans, v. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10, pvo/xsvos qfiais ot^o 
t'/js 6py?js trfi £p%ouivrj<; ;) but we owe to him our 
whole welfare and blessedness in the future 
world, (£05} cuwvtoj.) There the happiness be- 
gun in the present life will continue and be per- 
fected, and everything by which it is now in- 
terrupted will be removed. Besides, according 
to the New Testament, we may expect that 
God will there confer positive blessings and re- 
wards. Paul says, 1 Thess. v. 9, t&to qud$ 6 
©so$ ovx ftj opy^v, a%%' el$ rtepirtoivjGLV tfcotf^piaj 
(the attainment of happiness) Sta Xpttftfov. 
But how do we attain this happiness through 
Christ] 

(1) By the doctrine of Christ. This gives us 
(a) Information respecting the nature of future 
happiness, so far as we are now capable of un- 
derstanding it. Vide 1 Timothy, i. 10; 1 Cor. 
xv. (6) Direction how we may obtain the pos- 
session of it. The religion of Christ derives 
motives to piety and godliness from the bless- 
edness of the future world, shews us the means 
by which we may attain it, and prepares us for 
it. John, iii. 16; vi. 51; 1 John, ii. 25, the 
great end of the Christian religion (iHayysxCa) 
is to give men £u>rj aiuvios. By the Christian 
doctrine, and obedience to it, we are made 
(through divine assistance) to resemble the 
holiness and righteousness of Christ in this 
world, in order that we may hereafter be re- 
warded, as he is; 1 John, iv. 17; 2 Thess. ii. 
13, 15; iv. 14. Hence the Christian doctrine 
itself is called £toiq and £co»j atwnoj, because it 
shews oS6v £u>yjs ; John, xvii. 3. But, 

(2) Our enjoyment of this happiness is de- 
scribed as principally owing to Christ's death 
and subsequent exaltation, (a) Our entire free- 
dom from misery and our being placed in a 
happy condition is ascribed to the death of 
Christ, (vide No. I.,) and consequently the 

• happiness of the future state must also be a 
consequence of this event. Heb. ix. 15, " We 
obtain through the death of Christ trLuyyz'kCav 
aluiviov xXjypovo^/aj." 1 Thess. v. 10, "He died 
for us," i'va 6vv avtuj ^(jw/tfv. (b~) Since Christ 
is exalted in heaven, he cares for the good of 
men. He is air cos Owr^ptaj oucovt'ov tfots vrtaxov- 
ovoiv avtq rtdai, Heb. v. 9, coll. vii. 25. And 
as he has received power from the Father to 
raise the dead and hold a day of judgment, he 



has also received charge from him to distribute 
rewards to the righteous and to introduce his 
followers into the abodes of the blessed. Vide 
Matt. xxv. 32, seq. ; John, x. 28, 29, farjv aua- 
vlov §t&o/« av-r'otj, xvii. 2; 2 Tim. iv 18, et 
seq. 



ARTICLE XI. 

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF 
SALVATION. 



This Article, and the following, exhibit the man- 
ner in which Christians may attain to the promised 
happiness. The Eleventh Article treats of the con- 
ditions which the Christian doctrine prescribes to 
men, and which must be performed by them if they 
would actually enjoy this blessedness. These con- 
ditions are, repentance and faith. The Twelfth 
Article treats of the assistances by which God ena- 
bles men to perform the prescribed conditions, or, 
technically speaking, De operationibus grutiae, sive 
de oeconomia gratise. 



SECTION CXXI. 



»? 



ON THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF " FAITH, AS 
THE ONLY CONDITION OF SALVATION; TOGE- 
THER WITH REMARKS RESPECTING THE SALVA- 
TION OF THE HEATHEN AND OF INFANTS. 

I. Outline of the Christian Doctrine respecting 
Faith ,- the origin and ground of the same. 

(1) Jesus and the apostles, in the instruc- 
tions which they give to adults who are ac- 
quainted with the Christian doctrine, always 
insist chiefly on faith in Jesus Christ as the 
great condition of obtaining the salvation pur- 
chased by Christ. The whole happiness of the 
Christian (his faxaioavvrj and aiot^pla) is de- 
rived from this single source; and the unbeliever 
(drtttfT^tfaj) loses this happiness, and brings 
upon himself misery, (p.7tu%ua, xatdxpiai? ;) 
Mark, xvi. 16; Romans, i. 17; iii. 21, 22, 
"the gospel makes known the determination 
of God to forgive all who believe on Jesus 
Christ, on account of their faith, (ix or Btd trjs 
rtt'ofT'fwf ;)" Hebrews, x. 38, 39, seq. 

(2) The doctrine of faith is therefore inse- 
parably connected with the doctrine of the 
atonement and of justification. The latter car? 
be obtained only through faith. Therefore, cf 
s. 108, where the plan of this doctrine is stated 

We are led even by natural religion to the 
following points: — "Man must regard himself 
as morally imperfect, and in such a way, too, 
as to imply guilt on his own part; or, which i9 
the same thing, he must acknowledge himself 
to be a sinner, a transgressor of the divine pre- 
cepts. He must acknowledge that he ought to 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 421 



avoid and abhor sin, place his confidence in the 
mercy of God, hope for pardon and forgiveness 
from him, and that he ought to form and execute 
the serious purpose of obeying- the divine pre- 
cepts and living acceptably to God." This 
might be called the faith of reason. But this 
philosophical faith is wanting in that certainty 
and evidence which is necessary to tranquillize 
the mind; it is insufficient to satisfy those whose 
consciences are awakened ; as we have before 
shewn, s. 108. Experience teaches that a faith 
of this general nature is not able to answer those 
feelings which rise in the inmost soul even of 
the best of men. There must be something po- 
sitive and historical upon which they can rely; 
some express assurance from God of his for- 
giveness; or they will be left in the most dis- 
tressing uncertainty. The greater part of the 
human race, in all nations, are therefore united 
in believing that something must be done in 
order to conciliate the favour of God to sinners, 
and to induce him to forgive their past offences ; 
and also that their mere reformation, and their 
living in the practice of virtue, imperfect as 
their goodness will always be, is insufficient to 
secure the divine forgiveness, and can afford no 
quieting assurance that pardon is obtained. Vide 
s. 108. Now Christianity rejects all the means 
of conciliating the favour of God, in which the 
great body of men place their confidence, and 
which were common among Jews and Gentiles 
at the time of Christ. It regards them as af- 
fording false grounds of peace, and as being in- 
jurious to morality; and in place of them incul- 
cates faith in Jesus Christ, and the atonement 
made by him, and makes this, exclusive of the 
personal deserts of believers, the sole ground of 
all the benefits which they enjoy. 

In this manner, the doctrine respecting the 
conditions of salvation is brought into the closest 
connexion with the other positive doctrines of 
Christianity, and especially with the history of 
the person of Christ. To the greater part of man- 
kind this scriptural faith possesses far more in- 
terest, evidence, and certainty, than a merely 
philosophical faith can ever give. The latter 
must be forever attended with uncertainty, doubt, 
and fear of the reverse of what is hoped for. 
And this uncertainty and fear may become, in 
moments of suffering and adversity, extremely 
disturbing, and perhaps lead to obstinate de- 
spair. For we cannot obtain from philosophy any 
express assurance of the will of God relative to 
our forgiveness. Again : the scriptural account 
of faith in Christ as the only condition of sal- 
vation excludes wholly all the false motives to 
duty which are so injurious to true morality. 
The essentials of the scriptural doctrine on this 
point, and their connexion with each other, may 
be clearly seen in the following statement. 
The Christian should strive after the greatest 



possible moral perfection, (likeness to (3-od.) 
This effort should result from willing obedience 
to God, and this again from thankful love to 
God, and confidence in him, and not from slavish 
fear of punishment; 1 John, iv. 18, 19. But 
this love, this grateful confidence, cannot exist 
unless man is convinced that God is graciously 
disposed towards him, and will forgive his sins. 
God does not forgive sins, however, on account 
of good works, self-inflictions, sacrifices, &c, 
but on account of Christ; s. 108. We must 
therefore believe that Christ by his death has 
procured forgiveness and salvation. But would 
we come to the actual enjoyment of the promised 
forgiveness, we are under indispensable obliga- 
tions to live henceforward in the strictest ob- 
servance of the divine commands from grateful 
love to God and to Christ. Consequently we 
must become familiarly acquainted with the 
divine precepts and must regulate our whole 
conduct according to them ; and how to do this 
we are fully taught in the Christian doctrine. 
And thus faith as much involves our doing the 
divine will, as it does our knowing it. 

The personal enjoyment and possession of 
forgiveness and saving grace, and of the whole 
sum of Christian blessedness which God has 
promised to bestow, is called applicatio gratise, 
and the condition on which we obtain these 
blessings (conditio gratis) is faith. VideMorus, 
p. 197, seq., s. 1, 2. Those who enjoy these 
blessings are called in the scriptures by dif- 
ferent names. Vide Morus, p. 197, note 3. 
Cf. Tollner, Wahre Griinde warum Gott den 
Glauben an Christum will, in his " Vermischte 
Aufsatze," th. ii. st. 2. 

II. On the Salvation of Heathen and of Children. 

(1) When treating of the conditions of salva- 
tion established in the Christian scheme, we 
speak in reference to Christians — i. e., those 
who have opportunity and capacity to become 
acquainted with Christianity, and to convince 
themselves of its truth, without undertaking to 
say what means for attaining salvation God 
may give those who are ignorant of Christian- 
ity, or who remain unconvinced of its truth 
through unintentional mistake, and without 
criminality on their part. God is not limited 
to one single method, which he is compelled to 
employ equally at all times and among all men. 
The Bible says, indeed, that God will punish 
the heathen on account of their sins; not, how- 
ever, because they did not believe in Jesus 
Christ, if this was not their fault, but because 
they did not act agreeably to the knowledge 
which they possessed, and the law of nature 
with which they were acquainted; Rom. i. 21, 
seq.; Ephes. ii. 1, 2. The holy scriptu^* 
therefore, never regard the heathen merely as 
such, as excluded from salvation Such pas- 
2N 



422 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



sages as Mark, xvi. 16, do not relate to the 
heathen who are innocently ignorant of the 
gospel. The word aitundv does not signify 
not to believe, but to Disbelieve, and always im- 
plies guilt. The conclusion sometimes drawn 
from such passages is as improper as it would 
be to conclude from 2 Thess. iii. 10 that the 
child and the infirm man should be left to pe- 
rish by hunger; as Heilmann well observes. 
No one will ever be condemned for guiltless 
ignorance, or for unintentional and innocent 
mistake; but only for guilty rejection and con- 
tempt of the truth, or for living contrary to the 
truth when once known. What Mark expresses 
by urtL(rtdv, John expresses by y,^ jtiotsvtw, 
(to be unbelieving,) John, iii. 18; xii. 47, 48; 
and these twc modes of expression are synony- 
mous. Vide John, iii. 36. Hence artLatia and 
arts fee La were frequently interchanged as syno- 
nymous, Rom. iii. 3 ; xi. 20, 23, 30. Now the 
afysL^ovvts c, or a7iL6-tovvti $ are (a) the unbeliev- 
ing, those who do not receive the words and 
declarations of another as true, who do not give 
them credit; (b) the disobedient, obstinate, {con- 
tumaces ,•) in which sense Xenophon and other 
classical writers use the word ariLGtdv. Now 
the terms, arisL^elv XptcfT'cp, artLtitsLv, /xrj tClgtIsv- 
ilv, a&s-tsiv XptcfT'ov, are used in the New Tes- 
tament to designate those who are disobedient 
to Christ, and do not follow his precepts, always 
implying guilt on their part. This is done in 
two ways : (a) by despising and rejecting Chris- 
tianity when it is once made known, or when 
opportunity is given for understanding and exa- 
mining it ; Rom. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 1 1 ; (j3) by liv- 
ing in opposition to Christian truth when it is 
understood and embraced, and by neglecting 
its precepts. Vide Tit. i. 16. In both of these 
cases there is guilt; and hence punishment 
(xa?dxpLOL$) ensues. The word unbelief, there- 
fore, often designates at the same time these 
two kinds of guilt — e. g., Mark, xvi. 16; John, 
iii. 18—21; xii. 47, 48. 

Those heathen, now, who do not belong to 
one or the other of these classes, are not disbe- 
lievers, though they may not believe in Christ. 
Upon such, therefore, condemnation is not pro- 
nounced in these passages. They are not in- 
deed obedient to Christ, nor yet disobedient. 
Thus one who is not the subject of a certain 
king may not indeed be obedient to his laws, 
either because he is ignorant of them, or not 
bound in duty to obey them; but he cannot on 
this account be called disobedient. Disobedience 
always presupposes an obligation to obedience. 

(2) God has not seen good as yet to bring 
all nations to the knowledge of Christianity. 
And, little capable as we are of understanding 
the plan of God in this respect, we ought not to 
conclude from this circumstance that the Chris- 
tian revelation is unnecessary and may easily 



be dispensed with. It has pleased God to leave 
many nations for thousands of years in a barba- 
rous and savage state. But can we conclude 
from this fact that intellectual cultivation and 
moral improvement are superfluous and useless, 
and therefore missions are s unnecessary 1 Nor, 
on the other hand, can we conclude from this 
circumstance that God cannot save the heathen 
because they have not enjoyed the light of 
Christian revelation. Human happiness has as 
many degrees and gradations as human cultiva- 
tion and refinement of manners, and all men are 
not capable of one and the same degree. They 
cannot all, therefore, be treated by God in the 
same manner. One thing may be indispensable 
to the happiness of some persons and of some 
nations, while to others the same thing is quite 
superfluous, because they are as yet incapable 
of enjoying the happiness arising from it. It is 
not said in direct words in the New Testament, 
that God will make the heathen eternally happy. 
If this were said, there are many who would 
pervert it. But it is expressly asserted that 
God does not demand more from any one than 
he is able with his knowledge and abilities tc 
perform; Luke, xii. 48, seq.; and also, that he 
who faithfully serves God according to the 
knowledge and means which he enjoys, and 
does what he considers to be his duty, is accept- 
able to him; Acts, x. 35. Cf. Morus, p. 129, 
note 9. According to the testimony of the holy 
scriptures, God will have reference, in deter- 
mining the character and conditions of men, to 
the knowledge they have had, the dispositions 
they have cherished, and the actions they have 
performed. We may confidently expect from 
the goodness of God that since he has hereto- 
fore given to so many nations only the light of 
nature, he will not make them miserable for the 
want of that higher knowledge of which they 
are innocently destitute. And since there is a 
future life, we may trust that he will there lead 
them to that higher degree of happiness and 
clearness of knowledge which they did not at- 
tain in this life, because, without fault of their 
own, they were here incapable of receiving it. 
To such a dispensation in the future world there 
is at least an allusion in Rev. xxii. §,in the tree 
of life, by the river of life, whose leaves serve d$ 

The great body of the Jews, from the earliest 
ages, denied salvation to the heathen, on the 
principle, Extra ecclesiam non dari salutem. 
But this is entirely opposite both to the Old 
Testament and to the spirit of Christianity. 
Even Mahommed did not go to this degree of 
exclusiveness. Nor did the more ancient Gre- 
cian fathers deny salvation to the heathen, 
although they philosophized about it after their 
manner. E. g., Justin the Martyr and Clement 
of Alexandria held that the Aoyoj exerted an 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 42* 



»gency upon the heathen by means of reason ; 
and that the heathen philosophers were called, 
justified, and saved by philosophy. But after- 
wards, especially after the third century, when 
the false Jewish notions respecting the church 
(s. 134) were introduced into the West, and the 
maxim was adopted, Extra ecclesiam non dari 
salutem, (which was the case after the age of 
Augustine,) they then began to deny the salva- 
tion of the heathen: though there were always 
some who judged more favourably. Thus 
Zwingli, Curio, and others, believed that God 
would pardon the heathen on account of Christ, 
although in this life they had no knowledge of 
his merits. Cf. the historical account in Bey- 
kert's Diss, "de salute gentium;" Strasburg, 
1777; and a short statement of the opinions of 
others in Morus, p. 128, 129, where he justly 
recommends to our imitation the exemplary 
modesty of the apostles when speaking on this 
point. The whole subject was investigated 
anew on oceasion of the violent attack which 
Hofstede, a preacher in Holland, made upon 
the Belisaire of Marmontel. This gave rise to 
Eberhard's " Apologie des Socrates." Cf. also 
Tollner, Beweis dass Gott die Menschen auch 
durch seine Offenbarung in der Natur zur Se- 
ligkeit fiihre; Ziillichau, 1766, 8vo. Many 
modern writers have treated this subject in such 
a way as to lead to a feeling of indifference 
towards Christianity; but this result need not 
be feared from the scriptural representation here 
given. 

(3) We must apply these same principles to 
the subject of the salvation of infants. None 
have ever really doubted respecting the salva- 
tion of those who have died in infancy, before 
they attained to the full use of their understand- 
ing. For since there is a future life, we may 
expect with certainty that God will make such 
provision there, that both children in the literal 
sense, and those who are children in under- 
standing and knowledge, will be able to obtain 
what they were here deprived of without their 
own fault; and that in his goodness, wisdom, 
and justice, he will bestow upon them that de- 
gree of happiness of which they are capable. 

Theologians have pursued two different me- 
thods in treating of this subject. 

(a) Some are content with saying that God 
will pardon and save infants on account of the. 
merits of Christ, which extend to all, although 
they may not have believed in Christ during 
their life-time; and that their being born with 
natural depravity will not harm them, because 
they themselves are not to blame for it. These 
writers refer to Rom. v. 15 — 17 for an analo- 
gous proceeding. This is the most simple and 
the safest view. 

(b) Others, misunderstanding the passage, 
Mark, xvi. 16, suppose that faith in Christ is 



an indispensable requisite for salvation in all 
men ; and have therefore (together with some 
schoolmen) embraced the doctrine of a. faith of 
infants, which they have variously explained 
and described, as fides prsesumpta, implicita, per 
baptismum sine verbo (some say, sine cognitione\ 
infusa; talis ajfedio in infante qualis Deo placet. 
The schoolmen describe it as dispositio ad jus- 
titiam. But none of them succeed in conveying 
any intelligible idea. Nothing is said in the 
New Testament about such a faith. Faith 
always presupposes knowledge, and power to 
exercise the understanding. Now since chil- 
dren nave neither of these requisites, faith can- 
not be ascribed to them ; nor indeed disbelief, 
unless the word is used very improperly. The 
mere want of faith is not damnable, but unbelief 
only, or the guilty destitution of faith. Those 
who have adopted this view have thus been 
compelled (as appears from the preceding re- 
marks) to vary the idea which is uniformly 
attached to the word faith when adults are re- 
ferred to, as soon as they speak of children, and 
to call something in them by this name which 
is nowhere else so denominated. The passage, 
Matt, xviii. 6, does not bear upon this point, 
since the disciples of Christ are there meant 
Cf. the Article on Baptism, s. 142, and Morus, 
p. 249. From the words of Christ, however, 
Matt. xix. 14, "Of such is the kingdom of 
God," it is clear that he considers children as be- 
longing to his kingdom. And this is enough. 

SECTION CXXII. 

OF THE VARIOUS SIGNIFICATIONS OF THE WORD 
FAITH, AS USED IN THE BIBLE ', SOME OF THE 
PRINCIPAL PASSAGES RELATING TO FAITH ; THE 
PARTS OF WHICH FAITH IS MADE UP ; AND 
SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THEOLOGICAL 
DIVISIONS OF FAITH. 

I. Significations of irtcrrcs; and Explanation of the 
principal texts relative to Faith. 

The terms, faith, the faithful, &c, frequently 
occur in the religious dialect even of the He- 
brews. They were originally taken from the 
language of common life, and transferred into 
the religious phraseology of the Jews, where 
they express various nearly related ideas. 
From this Jewish dialect Christ and the apos- 
tles borrowed these terms. The Hebrew words 
trst, pcNn, n^-s, were translated by the Hellen- 
istic Jews (e. g., the LXX.) by the words Ttia- 
tsvsli', 7tioTi$, and were al:<o rendered in the 
same way by Christ and his apostles. 

jdn primarily signifies, to be firm ,■ and then, 
to bs certain, sure, confident. Hence rWEN signi 
lies, as rttWtj does, aside from its religions usr, 
truth, faith, integrity, honour, proof (Acts, xvii. 
31), and conviction, (Rom. xiv. 23.) When 



424 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



things are spoken of, ppxn and Ttiattviiv signify, 
to hold them (whatever they are, events, doc- 
trines, laws) as certain ; when persons are 
spoken of, they signify, to trust in them, to rely 
on their ivords, declarations, works. These 
words were used in the same sense in reference 
to persons and things, in the language of com- 
mon life among the Jews. In Hebrew the} T 
were construed with the particles 2 or hy. Hence 
in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, 
TiicftEvstv is construed with els a °d ev, frequently 
too, as in pure Greek, with the dative — e. g., 
f cj or Iv Xptffz'ci, ta Xpicrr'a, £vayye%LCf>, &C. The 
term occurs for the first time, in the religious 
sense, in reference to Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, 
ertontsvciE ©£<£ — i. e., considered his promise as 
sure, relied on it, and acted accordingly. It 
frequently occurs afterwards in the Old Testa- 
ment — e. g., Exod. xiv. 31 ; Psalm lxxviii. 22, 
32, &c. 

To believe, therefore, (a) when commands, 
promises, doctrines, events, are spoken of, sig- 
nifies, to consider and regard them as fixed and 
certain ; (b) when God is spoken of, it denotes 
our whole duty to him, love, confidence, and obe- 
dience to his commandments, because everything 
which comes from him is certain and infallible; 
(c) when prophets and the messengers of God 
are spoken of, to believe them, means, to receive 
and obey what they make known as of divine 
origin and infallibly certain. This term is em- 
ployed in the Koran in the same way. These 
main ideas are differently modified according to 
the different objects which are received by us 
as certain. And hence we can easily derive the 
strictly religious senses in which this word is 
used in the New Testament. 

(1) TLttitis frequently signifies religion itself 
and the particular doctrines of which it consists, 
{fides, quae creditur, or fides objectiva;~) like 
Iman, in the Koran, and rUDN in the Talmud. 
It is thus used for Christianity in general, Jude, 
ver. 3, 20, ayicotd-ty 7tiat£t, Gal. iii. 23. Also 
in the phrases vrtaxori rtritetos, fides apostolica, 
Nicsena, &c. N6,uoj TttWfcoj is the doctrine 
which requires faith. 

(2) It is more frequently used subjectively, 
denoting the approbation which one gives to a 
teacher, and the obedience which he yields to 
his instructions, after being convinced of the 
truth of his doctrine and the divinity of his mis- 
sion. This approbation is called in the schools, 
fides qua creditur. Thus John, v. 46, 7U6t£V£iv 
MutjatJ ; Matt. xxi. 25, 32, 'ItodwYj. When used 
in the gospels in reference to Jesus it denotes 
the acknowledgment of him, and obedience to 
him, sometimes as a prophet, and indeed the 
greatest messenger of Heaven; and sometimes 
as Messiah. Hence Christians are called tLig- 
t£vov?£s, 7tistol. Synonymous with itwesvtiv 
are rtei^ea^rat, u^o'hoytlv ~X.pt.o7bv 'l-^aovv, zIvoa 



Xpecr-foi;, or iv Xpicrro, Kvptov sijtstv, Itpftrwm 
£7tixa%nv bvojxa Xptu-fou. The opposite term? 
are aTtiatdv, o.7teC&tiv, /x^ v7iaxov£Lv £vayyc%ic> 
Closely connected with this is, 

(3) The sense, trust, confidence, Ttsrco^si^ 
which arises from the conviction of the truth 
and divinity of a doctrine, and is manifested in 
different ways. 

(r/) When one is convinced of the power and 
goodness of another, and therefore confidently 
hopes for help and assistance at his hand, and 
this not only because he is able, but also will- 
ing to help and befriend him. This use is com- 
mon in profime writings, in Hebrew (n;3 and 
rrxn), in the Septuagint, and in the New Tes- 
tament. Isaiah, xxviii. 16; Matt. xix. 2, &c. 
This confidence is therefore sometimes express- 
ed by the word h.itls, Rom. v. 5, by k-krtC&iv, 
with iv and 8t$, and by other similar terms. 
For the same reason, the confidence one may 
feel that God will enable him in an extraordi- 
nary manner to work a miracle, is called itlaiis 
— e. g., Matthew, xvii. 20; Acts, vi. 5, 8 ; 1 
Cor. xiii. 2. This faith is technically called 
fides miraculosa — the faith of miracles. 

(0) When one is convinced that another will 
do what he says, (is veracious and faithful.) he 
depends entirely on his promises, and certainly 
expects their fulfilment in every case, and from 
this confidence complies with everything which 
the other requires. Thus Abraham's faith in 
God is described; and thus the terms itixresvsw 
©jo and Ady9 &£ov are often used, Ps. cvi. 12 ; 
Hab. ii. 1. 

From this wider meaning has arisen the pro- 
per Christian sense of saving faith, which P^.ul 
frequently uses in his epistles to the Romans 
and Galatians, where he controverts the mis- 
take of the meritoriousness of observing the di- 
vine law. Here inntEvsiv Xpcsrc} and itl$*i% 
denote the firm persuasion that we owe our 
whole spiritual welfare to Christ, or to the free, 
unmerited mercy of God on Christ's account, 
and our trust in God and Christ arising from 
hence, Gal. ii. 16; iii. 6; Rom. iv. 16, seq. 
This kind of Christian faith is compared with 
that of Abraham. He confided in God in the 
same manner, according to the measure of his 
knowledge. He relied on the promise (srtay- 
y£\la, Rom. iv. 20) of God respecting a numer- 
ous offspring, and on the other great promises 
connected with this, (although he saw the good, 
as Paul says, only rtopjja&sv,) without doubt- 
ing, (01; hi£xpi%r t , and rtx^poipop-^st^ firmly con- 
vinced,) though the thing promised was appa- 
rently improbable, {jtap i"k7ti,§a, T ^r. 18.) Now 
as Abraham confided in the promise of God, 
(£7tltjt£v?£ ©?£,) Christians should also confide 
in the promise of God and Christ, and look to 
God for salvation and blessedness, in this life 
and the life to come, in and through Cfcrot, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 425 



and not on their own account, or on the ground 
of their own merit, of which they have nothing 
to boast. This is what theologians call justify- 
ing and saving faith. 

The two former senses of faith are not ex- 
cluded from this third signification, but are al- 
ways presupposed and included in it. One 
who would obtain forgiveness through faith in 
Christ must (a) have an acquaintance with the 
Christian religion, and a persuasion of its truth ; 
he must regard it as of divine authority, and 
embrace it with all his heart ; and (6) he must 
actually rely on the divine promises contained 
in this religion, and prove the reality of his con- 
fidence by his feelings and actions. The latter 
sense springs out of the former. How could 
Abraham have confided in God if he had been 
destitute of the knowledge of God, of his attri- 
butes, and promises'? Hence when Paul would 
give a complete description of true Christian 
faith, he often comprises both these ideas quite 
distinctly under the word rclatis, Rom. iii., iv., 
and James, ii. 19 — 24, where itia-tsvkiv refers 
sometimes to knowledge and the assent of the 
understanding, and sometimes to the confidence 
which springs from them. 

Note. — The passage Heb. xi. 1 has always 
been considered one of the most important with 
regard to the subject of faith, and so indeed it 
should be, though its sense has been frequently 
perverted. The meaning of this passage needs 
to be distinctly exhibited. Paul here speaks of 
faith, or confidence in the divine promises or 
declarations, in general, especially of that exer- 
cised in sufferings and persecutions, (in order 
to preserve Christians from apostasy,) not ex- 
clusive, however, of the peculiar saving faith 
of the Christian, as he also hopes to obtain for- 
giveness and salvation through Christ. This 
is taught by the examples of Rahab, Samson, 
Jephthah, and others, which are mentioned. 
Paul does not undertake to give a logical defi- 
nition of faith, but only distinctly to describe its 
characteristics, without which one cannot lay 
claim to the possession of faith. But this is 
the very reason why the passage is so worthy 
of note, and so practically useful ; for it shews 
what is requisite to faith in general, according 
to Paul's ideas of it, and what traits it must al- 
ways possess, however different may be the 
objects to which it is directed. A person shews 
his faith by being firmly and unhesitatingly 
convinced, on the mere testimony of God, (1) 
with respect to things which are not actually 
present with us and in our possession (^7tt£o- 
\teva) — e. g., future deliverance, future blessed- 
ness, promised by God, of whatever kind it may 
be, temporal or spiritual ; (2) with respect to 
things beyond the reach of our senses, (ov 
fiterto/AEva.) 'TrtooTfaais and Iteyxos are synony- 
raous in this passage, and signify fi-^na persua- 
54 



sio. Paul himself explains his meaning in ver. 
6 : the pious man must believe that God exists, 
(although he does not see him,) and that he will 
reward his worshippers, (although the reward 
is not immediate.) Here therefore both know- 
ledge and assent to the truth, and the confidence 
which is the result of them, are requisite, in 
order to the existence of faith in the wider sense 
in which it is here used. 

II. Theological Divisions of Faith ,- and the parts 
of which it is composed. 

(1) The Bible frequently says respecting one 
who professes Christianity, that he has faith in 
Christ. Vide No. 1. But this faith is twofold. 
One may understand and externally profess the 
doctrines of Christianity without obeying them 
or feeling their transforming influence upon his 
heart; or he may apply them, according to their 
design, to the improvement of his heart and the 
sanctiflcation of his dispositions; in short, he 
may do all that God requires of him in the 
Christian doctrine. The faith of the former is 
called Jides externa, historica, or theoretical that 
of the latter, fides interna, habitaalis, salvifica, 
{salutary, saving, ccor^ptoj.) The former kind 
of faith, disconnected with the latter, is some- 
times called dead faith, because it is infftctual, 
and contributes nothing to our improvement or 
salvation. The phrase is taken from James, ii. 
17, 20, 28. The latter is called living, viva, ac- 
tuosa, because it exerts a salutary influence in 
promoting our happiness and true welfare. 

Christian faith, in its whole extent, is there- 
fore a conviction of the truth and divinity of the 
Christian scheme of salvation, and a conduct 
conformed to this conviction. One who believes 
the Christian religion in such a way as to act in 
accordance with it, and who allows his affec- 
tions to be governed by his belief, is a true 
Christian, and possesses fides salvifica. As to 
one who willingly and cheerfully follows the 
commandments of God and Christ, and sedu- 
lously conducts himself by the rules which they 
have prescribed, the Bible says, either that he 
is obedient to God and Christ, or he believes in 
them. Hence these two terms are synonymous ; 
Morus, p. 201, n. 3. The definition, therefore, 
which Crusius gives in the passage before 
cited, is just: saving faith is a cordial approval 
of, and compliance with, the divine plan of salva- 
tion. 

(2) On the different parts of which faith con- 
sists. 

Faith is made up of different parts, all of 
which, however, must belong to it, in order to 
its being perfect. The different objects of 
Christian instruction, to which faith refers, 
form the ground of this division. There is a 
faith in events, in doctrines, commands, and 
promises. These objects will be paruetuarly 
2n2 



426 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



considered in the following 1 section. Now 
Christian faith, in a general view, embracing 
all these objects, is considered by theologians 
as consisting of three parts — knowledge, assent, 
and trust, or confidence, {notitia, assensus, fidu- 
cial, which will now be considered. Whenever 
entire Christian faith is spoken of as compre- 
hending all the objects just mentioned, this di- 
vision is perfectly applicable. But all these 
parts do not belong to Christian faith as direct- 
ed to each particular object. They all belong 
only to the faith in promises. Knowledge and 
assent merely are requisite to the faith in events 
and doctrines; and a will and inclination to 
obey, to faith in the divine commands. To avoid 
this inconvenience, faith might be made to con- 
sist in two particulars — knowledge, and a dispo- 
sition of heart correspondent to this knowledge, 
(Jrttyvcotftj xal alo^ais, Phil. i. 9,) according to 
which one would be inclined to obey the divine 
commands and confide in the divine promises. 
Many theologians prefer this division. But in 
what remains we shall follow the common 
threefold division. 

(a) Knowledge of the subject to be believed is, 
from the very nature of the case, an essential 
part of faith, of whatever kind it may be. Paul 
asks, How can men believe, if they are not in- 
structed? (if they do not possess knowledge of 
the things to be believed,) Rom. x. 14. This 
knowledge cannot, indeed, in every case, be 
equally thorough and comprehensive. In many 
of the early Christians it was at first very gene- 
ral and confined, as indeed it is often still, to 
some of the great elementary truths. But how- 
ever limited and imperfect this knowledge may 
be, it always implies certainty, and must amount 
to a firm conviction ,• otherwise, from the very 
nature of the human mind, it can produce no 
effect on the will, and it ceases to he faith. For 
we believe only that of which we are certain. 
Cf. the terms v7t6otaov$ and ctey^oj, Heb. xi. 1, 
and 7t?L}7po(f>opEtc£ku, Rom. iv. 2.1, where it is 
contrasted with doubting,- also James, i. 6. 
But this conviction should be effected by rea- 
sons which enlighten the understanding, by in- 
struction intelligible to the human mind, not by 
authoritative and compulsory decisions. The 
mere reception of a doctrine on the word or 
command of another, without being ourselves 
convinced of its truth, is not faith, but credulity. 
Christ and his apostles therefore prescribe in- 
struction, (xYipv<3&£iv,) and make faith a result or 
effect of instruction — e. g., Mark, xvi. 16. And 
Paul derives 7tia*is from dxorj, Rom. x. 17, &c. 
From these remarks we can easily see how far 
to admit the fides implicita of the schoolmen. 
They mean by this, faith in such doctrines as 
we do not understand, and of which we are not 
convinced by reason, but must receive on the 
mere word and authority of the church. From 



these remarks, too, we can easily form an opi- 
nion respecting the faith of children, for which 
some contend. Vide s. 120, ad flnem. 

(6) Assent. This is divided into general (as- 
sensus generalis), by which is meant the general 
reception of known truth as credible and sure; 
and into particular {assensus specialis), by whic.j 
is meant the special application of certain gene- 
ral truths of the Christian doctrine to oneself— 
e. g., Christ died for men, and also for me. It 
is this latter kind which more frequently pro- 
duces salutary feelings and emotions in the 
soul. Vide the examples, Rom. viii. 31 — 39; 
1 Tim. i. 15, 16; Morus, p. 201, s. 6. This is 
commonly expressed in the New Testament by 
8s%£a^ai, and 7tapa£ezso$au, as Mark, iv. 20, 
where axovuv implies the knowledge of the 
truth, rtopafii^fo^at, assent to it, from whence 
the result xaprtofyoptlv. 1 Thess. ii. 13, where 
Ttapa^.afA.j5dveiv "koyov, merely to hear instruction, 
is distinguished from 8£%eo$<u. 1 Cor. ii. 14, 
the carnal man, obedient only to his passions, 
does not assent (Si^o^cu) to the divine doc- 
trine, &c. 

Although assent should always be connected 
with the knowledge of the truth, because the 
will should be governed by the understanding, 
yet we find that it is often withheld from truths 
which cannot be doubted, from the prevalence 
of prejudice or passion. So it was with the 
contemporaries of Jesus in Palestine. They 
could not deny that the miracles which he 
wrought were real miracles, and yet they did 
not yield him their assent. Like to these are 
all who at the present day, from love to sin, re- 
fuse obedience to the truth which they know. 
Such persons commonly endeavour to persuade 
themselves and others that the cause of their 
unbelief has some other ground besides their 
own will; hence they give ready credit to every 
semblance of reason for doubting the truth and 
divinity of Christianity. 

If this assent, therefore, is genuine, it must 
act on the heart of man. The will must be con- 
trolled and governed by the truths which the 
understanding acknowledges and embraces as 
true. Otherwise this assent resembles that 
which, according to James, ii. 19, we allow even 
to devils. Cf. James, i. 22 ; Luke, viii. 13 ; and 
Heb. iv. 2. 

It will be understood, of course, that this as- 
sent has different degrees, respecting which we 
shall say more hereafter, 

(c) Trust, or confidence. Knowledge and as- 
sent become, in respect to the divine promises 
given to Christians, confidence — i. e., a firm con- 
viction that the promises given by God will 
surely be fulfilled. Morus, p. 202, n. 2, justly 
says, "that to the assent of the understanding 
there must be added a trust in that grace (of 
God) by which one conducts himself conform* 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 40 



ably to this gracious promise." All the three 
parts, therefore, of which faith consists, are 
comprised in that faith which relates to the 
divine promises; while, from the very nature 
of the case, only knowledge and assent belong 
to the faith relating to events, doctrines, and 
commands. Here, on the contrary, from the 
very nature of the subject, all the three parts 
must consist together. This state of mind in 
Christians is called in the New Testament 
Ttfrto/^ortj, rtapjj^rua, £%7tus, x. t. %. Ephes. iii. 
12; Heb. iii. 6; 1 John, ii. 28. 

Note. — On the method pursued by Jesus and the 
apostles in teaching the doctrines of faith. They 
do not confine themselves merely to enlighten- 
ing the understanding (Sibaaxuv), but, in con- 
nexion with this, they would always have an 
appeal made to the heart, (vLapaxaXzlv .) So 
2 Tim. iv. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 13; 2 Cor. v. 20, &c. 
They always employ the effect produced in the 
understanding by truth, to move and excite the 
affections of their hearers or readers. Thus their 
instruction is always perfectly practical: The 
beginning must indeed be always made by in- 
forming the understanding. For how can a man 
believe or perform anything with which he is, un- 
acquainted ] Vide Rom. x. 14. But the Chris- 
tian teacher who is content, as is often the case, 
with giving lifeless instruction to the understand- 
ing, and who supposes that the approval of the 
affections will follow of course, betrays great 
ignorance of human nature. For experience 
proves that the state of the heart exerts a great 
influence on the attention paid to truth, and on 
the whole activity of the understanding. If the 
heart is wanting in love for the truth, the under- 
standing will be very slow in coming to a clear 
knowledge, just discernment, and proper esti- 
mation of it, and the reverse. According to the 
method of Christ and his apostles, therefore, 
which is adapted to the very nature of the human 
soul, the teacher who labours to promote the con- 
viction and conversion of men, must begin at 
the very outset by inculcating the most clear, 
practical truths, in order that the heart may first 
become favourably disposed to the truth, and 
that the understanding may thus become more 
susceptible of what is taught. He must then 
employ again the truths which he has thus com- 
municated to excite and move the affections. 
And whatever knowledge is conveyed to the 
mind should always be so directed by the Chris- 
tian teacher as to excite and move the affections. 

SECTION CXXIII. 

OF THE DIFFERENT OBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN DOC- 
TRINE TO WHICH FAITH REFERS; AND THE 
RELATION OF FAITH TO THE SAME. 

These different objects were enumerated, s. 



122, II. 2, and will now be separately consi- 
dered. 

The truths of the Christian religion which 
faith embraces may be reduced to the following 
classes : — 

I. Dodrines T and Historical Facts. 

Historical facts are here classed with doctrines 
because the Christian religion is founded on 
facts; such, for example, as that Christ died, 
rose again, &c. The firm conviction that these 
doctrines or events are true is called, with re- 
gard to the former, fides dogmaiica, with regard 
to the latter, fides historica, (in the more limited 
sense.) For examples of the former kind, vide 
Heb. xi. 2, seq. ; of the latter kind, Rom. x. 9, 
10; John, xx. 29; 1 Cor. xv. 3. The apostles 
always placed the doctrines of Christianity in 
the most intimate connexion with the person 
and whole history of Christ, and in this way 
gave general truths, such as the paternal love 
of God, and his readiness to forgive, the author- 
ity of positive Christian doctrines. Vide Art. 
x. Christ and the apostles teach no Christianity 
independent of the person and history of Jesus 
Christ. Their whole system is founded on the 
fact that Christ is the great Messenger promised 
by God, and that life everlasting may be ob- 
tained through faith in him; and to these truths 
they constantly refer; John, xx. 31. To extend 
and perpetuate the knowledge of these facts all 
the gospels were written, and all the apostles 
laboured in their oral and written instructions. 
As soon as the doctrines, laws, and promises of 
Christianity are separated from the history of 
Christ, they lose that positive sanction which 
they must have in order to answer the demands 
of the great mass of mankind. The apostles 
therefore always built their instructions on the 
history of Christ. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 2, 3, 14. And 
the teacher who regards the directions and ex- 
ample of Christ and of the early Christian 
teachers, and who is convinced of the import- 
ance of these peculiar doctrines of Christian- 
ity, will follow their example in this respect, 
that instead of withholding these doctrines from 
the youth whom he is called to instruct, he will 
place them before their minds in a manner 
adapted to their comprehensions. And he must 
disapprove the course of some who confine their 
instructions to the truths of natural religion. 
But even supposing that the teacher should 
doubt in his own mind respecting the import- 
ance of these peculiar Christian doctrines, he 
ought to know, from the mere principles of hu- 
man nature, that the dry exhibition of the truths 
of reason, without the vehicle of history, is ill 
adapted for the instruction of the common people 
and of the young. He ought to know, too, that 
there is no history which can be used to more 
advantage for the purpose of rendering the great 



428 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



truths of religion evident, impressive, and prac- 
tical, than the history of Christ. In neglecting 
this method, or objecting to it, he has considered 
only one side of the subject, and while he sup- 
poses he is proceeding very philosophically, his 
conduct is, in fact, exceedingly otherwise. 
Happy the teacher who knows from his own 
experience the salutary efficacy of the positive 
doctrines of Christianity ! Supposing him, 
however, not to have this experience, he ought, 
for the reasons above given, to adopt this most 
reasonable method of instruction. Cf. Miiller, 
Vom christlichen Religionsunterrichte ; Winter- 
thur, 1809, 8vo. 

But in order that the general doctrines of 
Christianity may exert an influence on any one's 
feelings and dispositions, he must exercise the 
assensio specialis (s. 122, II.) — i. e., he must be 
convinced of the applicability of these doctrines 
to himself; he must appropriate and apply them 
to himself; he must feel, for example, that Christ 
died not only for all men, but also for him. For 
our confidence in the divine promises given 
through Christ and on his account must depend 
on our conviction that they relate personally to 
ourselves, that they are given to us. To pro- 
duce this conviction should be the great object 
of the teacher. For religion should not be so 
much the concern of the head as the interest of 
ihe heart. 

II. The Divine Promises. 

The divine promises constitute a very import- 
ant part of the Christian doctrine. The faith in 
them which is required of us as Christians has 
not so much respect to the promises of temporal 
good as to those of spiritual and eternal good 
which we may obtain through Christ and on 
his account. 

The following particulars may be noticed with 
respect to this faith — -viz., 

(1) True faith in the divine promises consists 
in a confident and undoubting hope that God will 
fulfil them, and will actually bestow upon us the 
good which he has promised. All the three 
parts of which faith consists (knowledge, as- 
sent, and confidence, Rom. iv. 16) belong to 
this kind, s. 122. Paul illustrates the nature 
of this kind of faith by the example of Abraham, 
Rom. iv. 20; Gal. iii. 8, 16. Abraham had 
great promises made to him (irtayyekuu), the 
fulfilment of which, at the time they were given, 
was quite improbable; and yet he maintained a 
firm faith. We may mention here the examples 
of the faith of the Israelites, John, iii. 14, coll. 
Num. xxi., and Heb. iv. 1. In the last-cited 
passage, faith in Christian promises is not, in- 
deed, the particular subject of discourse. But 
all which is true of faith in other promises of 
divine favours is also true of faith in Christian 
promises. The only difference in the two cases 



is the difference of the objects upon which faith 
fixes. The signs and characteristics of it are 
the same. Vide Heb. xi. 1, (s. 122, ad finem.) 
Hence Paul calls all who believe in the diviue 
promises (ot ix rtCateo^,) Abraham's children— 
i. e., like him, and capable of a similar reward. 

(2) The promises given to Christians, as 
such, have all reference to Christ; Morus, p. 
203, s. 7. They are placed in the most intimate 
connexion with his person and history. Christ 
is therefore always described as the ground of 
our faith, (fundamentum fdei.) We are taught 
everywhere that Christ died for us, that on his 
account God remits the punishment of sin, and 
bestows upon us everlasting happiness. It is in 
these divine promises that we are required to be- 
lieve — i. e., we must be persuaded that God will 
fulfil them for us. Vide Rom. iii. 15; viii. 12, 
17 ; iv. 24. Theologians call this kind of faith, 
or this firm conviction that God will perform his 
promises to us, and for Christ's sake be gracious 
to us, the application or laying hold (apprehen- 
sionem) of the merits of Christ. Both the theory 
itself and this term rest upon the authority of 
the New Testament, although the term rtapa- 
\auL$dvnv Xpia-tov in Col. ii. 6, signifies, to be 
informed respecting Christ and his religion, to 
hear Christian doctrines. This idea is com- 
monly denoted by the terms, Ttia-tsvziv *£ ;\.oy<£ 
toi) atavpov, Etj -L^co^-lyr'a, x. t. X. Vide Morus, 
p. 203, n. 1. But in John, i. 12, the term ?iap- 
ftdvELv X.piGtov is used to denote this self-apply- 
ing faith, for it is directly explained by the term 

TtlOTfeVSLV. 

(3) The result of this confident faith in the di- 
vine promises is the possession or enjoyment of 
the promised good, or the reward. God is not 
only able to perform his promises ; he is likewise 
true and infallible. Buthe never makes promises 
to men on the ground of their desert, for they 
have none; but all his promises are undeserved. 
He gives them, indeed, on condition of faith 
(5ta ftoWtoj), Rom. iv. 4, 16; but yet Scopsdv 
and xata %<xpiv, and not as 6q>Ei , kr i ua. This 
truth is thus expressed in the same connexion 
(ver. 3) ; a man's observing the divine law can 
not be imputed to him as a merit, but faith 
only Tioyi-'^ftcu si$ Sixcuocivvrjv. Cf. Gen. xv. 6. 
For obedience to the divine law is what we owe. 
Nor can we find anywhere, even in the greatest 
saint, an obedience so perfect as to satisfy con- 
science. Now since Christians are to have 
good bestowed upon them through Christ, and 
on account of faith in the divine promises, and 
since this good is commenced in the removal of 
punishment, or the forgiveness of sin (justifi- 
cation, pardon), this faith is called justifying 
(justifkam); as Paul says, in the passage cited, 
8ixaiovfi£vo<' 8ioptav Sux ■trfi rticstEuts. Paul illus- 
trates this by the example of Abraham. His 
faith in the divine promises was impu f e«I to him 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 429 



by God as a merit — 1. t,., he was rewarded on 
account of his faith. The promises made to 
him of a favoured posterity and the possession 
of Canaan were fulfilled to him as a reward. 
In Heb. xi. 31, Paul illustrates this by the ex- 
ample of Rahab. Her faith (a firm conviction 
that the God of the Israelites is omnipotent, and 
would fulfil his promises to the Israelites, and 
give them the land of Canaan) was the occasion 
of her being - pardoned, and not perishing - with 
the rest of the Canaanites, ov awo.Ttui'ksto ^ois 
aTtft^ffow, or, as James says (ii. 25), e6ixaiu,^7j. 
In this case, indeed, the object of faith is differ- 
ent from the object of Christian faith. But the 
result (reward) is the same; and the character- 
istics of it are the same. In the case of Rahab, 
the good bestowed was earthly and temporal; 
in the other, spiritual and eternal. 

III. The Divine Laws or Precepts. 

Since to believe, in the large sense, is the same 
as to receive and obey the Christian doctrine in 
all its parts ; its laws and rules of action must 
be as perfectly acknowledged and received as its 
promises. 

(1) Statement of the doctrine of the New Tes- 
tament on this subject. One who believes the 
divine promises receives the good promised on 
account of his faith ; but it is not optional with 
him to receive this part only of the Christian 
doctrine, and to refuse obedience to the laws 
which it prescribes. No one can say, I will 
hold fast to the promises, and leave the observance 
of the law to others. These two things cannot 
be separated ; and they are both implied in be- 
lieving in Christ, or the gospel. Christ and the 
apostles everywhere teach that the observance 
of the precepts of Christianity, or holiness, can- 
not be separated from faith in Christ. Obedi- 
ence is the fruit of faith. Matt. vii. 21, "He 
only who does the will of my Father can enter 
into the kingdom of 'heaven." John, xv. 14; 
Luke, vi. 46 — 49 ; 1 John, ii. 3 — 6, which is 
the most decisive text. Paul expresses himself 
in the same manner on this subject, Gal. v. 6 ; 
Ephes. iv. 22, and here certainly he does not 
contradict James. The latter is very explicit on 
this subject, especially in the second chapter of 
his epistle, where he remonstrates against the 
perversions of the doctrine of faith, as if a mere 
knowledge and cold assent to the truth, a dead 
faith in Christ, disconnected with the practice 
of holiness, could be sufficient. 

This disposition of the Christian to live in 
entire conformity with the precepts of the Chris- 
tian doctrine is called ^poj/jj^a 7iv£vy.a-tos, Ro- 
mans, vii. 6, 7, 18 — i. e., the renewed temper 
produced by God, by means of Christianity, 
the holiness, love, and zeal for virtue produced 
in the Christian by the Holy Spirit. It is op- 
posed to fypov/ifia (japxos — i. e., the disposition to 



live according to sinful propensities. This dis- 
position is everywhere ascribed to God, or to 
the Holy Spirit, as the author of Christianity , 
the guide of the pious, and the promoter of all 
Christian perfection. In Romans, viii. 1, this 
state is described by the phrase 7ispc7iatnv xa-ta 
rtvsvjxa, and in ver. 9, by Ttvev/xa 'Kpiatov, a 
Christian state of mind, a disposition like that 
of Christ, and for which we are indebted to his 
assistance and instructions. In 1 John, iii. 24, 
the same term is used. In Gal. v. 22, the term 
xaprtbs rtvsvfxatos is used, denoting Christian 
virtues, actions proceeding from a heart renewed 
by the Holy Spirit, through the influence of 
Christianity. In Rom. vi. 6, &c, this charac- 
ter is called, metaphorically, xatvos at&porfoj, 
and the renunciation of the previous love and 
habit of sinning is called fittdvoia, the putting 
off of the old man, &c, which will be further 
considered hereafter. Faith in the divine pro- 
mises, thus connected with obedience to Chris- 
tian precepts, or holiness, is called living, or 
active faith, viva, actuosa, operosa, practica. Paul 
himself speaks of a faith (Si cuyart^s) syspyovpivrj, 
Gal. v. 6. 

(2) On the use of the words law and gospel, 
in the Bible and in theology, and inferences from 
it. Moms treats this subject as an Appendix 
to c. 3, p. 238—244. 

(a) When the words vo/ioj and ypdfxfxa are 
used in the New Testament in opposition to 
svayy&aov and nvsv/xa, the former do not mean 
precepts respecting the conduct of men in gene- 
ral ; nor the latter merely the promises (irtayys- 
Xt'cu) given to Christians. But vbfio^ and ypd^/xa 
frequently denote the Mosaic law, or the whole 
Old-Testament institute and religion ; zvayyi- 
•Kiov, rtvtvua, and other similar terms, the whole 
Christian doctrine, its commands as well as its 
promises. Thus, e. g., the sermon on the Mount, 
Matt, v., is purely evangelical, even in the pre- 
cepts respecting conduct which it contains ; 
John, i. 17; Rom. viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 6; iv. 6, 
seq. ; Morus, p. 240, s. 4. 

This will help us to explain many of the texts 
in which the apostles speak of the great advan- 
tages which the gospel has over the law ,• where 
they say the law was imperfect, was not design- 
ed for all men in all ages, is not obligatory on 
Christians, and is supplanted by Christianity. 
Much like this is found in Rom. iii., iv., vii., 
viii., and Gal. iii. 

But the schoolmen, and many theologians 
who followed them, did not distinguish accu- 
rately between the various senses of the word? 
v6fio$ and wayysUov in the New Testament. 
And notwithstanding it is clearly asserted that 
the whole Mosaic institute, as such, is super- 
seded by Christianity (vide s. 118, II.), yet 
many held Jhe opinion that the law given on 
Mount Sinai was designed, as far as its moral 



430 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



part is concerned, for the whole world, and is 
obligatory at all times, even on the ground of 
its having been there given. They understand 
the Christian law and the law of Moses to be sy- 
nonymous, and believe that the Mosaic law, as 
such, (the ceremonial part only excepted,) is 
obligatory upon Christians. On the other hand, 
they always understand zvayysXiov, according 
to its etymology (joyful news), to mean, not 
the whole Christian doctrine, but only that part 
of it which contains the promises. 

This departure from the scriptural usage gave 
occasion to adopt the division into law and gos- 
pel in the theological sense. Such, then, is the 
state of the case. Gospel, in the wider sense, 
is the whole Christian doctrine, as composed 
both of precept and promise. This is the most 
common sense in the New Testament. In the 
narrower sense, it is the promises of the Chris- 
tian doctrine, especially those of pardon through 
Christ. In this sense it sometimes occurs in 
the New Testament; Rom. x. 1G, coll. ver. 
3—15 ; Rom. i. 16, 17 ; iii. 21 ; Acts, xiii. 32 ; 
xx. 24, frayyfT.cov ^apt-fo^ ©jov, 1 Cor. ix. 23. 
In this sense theologians have always used it. 
Law generally signifies in the New Testament 
the Mosaic law; but sometimes the precepts of 
God and of Christ, Gal. vi. 2, &c. 

(b) By law and gospel, as used in theology, 
the whole sum of the doctrine of salvation is 
meant. By the law is understood the sum of 
all the divine precepts given to man in the Old 
and New Testament ; or, the whole moral law ,• 
Morus, p. 238, seq., s. 2. From this we learn 
what God has commanded and forbidden, and 
of course what sin is. By gospel is understood 
all the promises relating to the salvation of man 
through Christ, whether contained in the Old 
or New Testament. These assure men of grace 
and forgiveness, and thus comfort and encour- 
age the sinner; this is what is more properly 
called t-iiayyi/Uov ^apt-roj. 

This definite theological use, which is not in 
itself unscriptural, was common before the Re- 
formation in the Romish church, and was em- 
ployed by the schoolmen in their systems. Be- 
cause the decalogue contains moral precepts, and 
is called, by way of eminence, law, and be- 
cause v6fio$ occurs sometimes in this sense in 
the New Testament, they called all moral pre- 
cepts the law ,- and because svayys%iov signifies, 
etymologically, a joyful message, and occurs 
sometimes in this sense in the New Testament, 
they called all the promises of God, inasmuch as 
they are of a joyful nature, gospel This was 
proper in itself. The fault lay in their regard- 
ing this as the only scriptural use, and accord- 
ingly endeavouring to adapt it to all the pas- 
sages in which law and gospel occur. Luther 
and Melancthon, and also the Swiss reformers, 
retained the established usage of these terms, 



and from them it has been adopted by other '.he- 
ologians of the protestant church into their sys- 
tems. The Arminians, in the seventeenth cen- 
tury, made the first attempt to shew, some of 
them, that this is not to be found in the Bible, 
and others, more justly, that it is not the only 
scriptural use. They taught that the gospel 
comprehends laws as well as promises, and 
that one as well as the other must be comprised 
in faith in Jesus Christ. But the old division 
was for a long time retained by protestant theo- 
logians, even in their homiletical and cateche- 
tical instructions ; nor was there anything ob- 
jectionable in this. Although this use of these 
words is not the only, nor even the common 
scriptural usage, yet there is good reason for 
this distinction (Morus, p. 240, s. 4), if it is 
only properly explained. The truth which is 
designated by it cannot and ought not to be 
passed over. For it is plain that rules for con- 
duct and promises of blessing are of altogether 
a different nature, have different ends, and pro- 
duce different effects, and that both therefore 
must have different predicates. The Christian 
doctrine contains both. From the nature of the 
human soul, promises of a great good awaken 
pleasure in the mind, and incite to willing effort 
to do everything which can secure the enjoy- 
ment of this good. But this very nature of the 
soul makes rules for feeling and conduct neces- 
sary. Precepts and promises must be most in- 
timately connected. And the promises must be 
made to serve as a spring and motive to obey 
the divine commands. This obedience is an 
indispensable condition, and unless it is fulfilled 
the promised good cannot be bestowed. This 
is the doctrine of the New Testament. The 
Christian teacher must therefore make use of 
the law, in order to promote the knowledge of 
sin, and repentance, and to shew the unhappy 
consequences which, according to the Christian 
doctrine, result from sin both in this life and 
the life to come; and that he may employ for 
this purpose everything, as well in the Old as 
in the New Testament, which bears on this 
subject. Vide Morus, p. 242, s. 7. 

Note. — The passages, Rom. iii. and Gal. iii. 
and iv., relating to the law and its abolition, 
have been misunderstood in two different ways, 
which should be carefully guarded against. 

(a) Some have taught that believers have no- 
thing to do with the law, since Christ has ful- 
filled it for them ; and they appeal to these pas- 
sages. They would embrace only one part of 
the gospel — 'its promises, and would gladly be 
relieved of the other, and thus overthrow all 
morality. Such were the doctrines of many of 
the fanatics at the time of the Reformation and 
afterwards. Morus, p. 241, s. 6. The same 
thing was charged upon Agricola in the six- 
teenth century, and his followers, the Antino- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 431 



mians. Hence the fifth and sixth articles were 
introduced into the Form of Concord. 

(6) Others have supposed that the Mosaic 
ceremonial, or civil law exclusively, is intended 
in those passages where it is said that man de- 
serves nothing of God by observing the law — 
e. g., Rom. iii. and Gal. iii. and iv. They 
maintained, accordingly, that although the fa- 
vour of God could not be conciliated by obe- 
dience to the ceremonial law, it might be by the 
observance of the moral law. Thus the Soci- 
nians and many others. But Paul knows nothing 
of such a distinction, and what he says, he says 
of the whole Mosaic law, moral as well as 
ritual. The observance of the one is as little 
meritorious as of the other; and what is true of 
the moral law of Moses is true, according to 
his express declaration in these passages, of the 
whole moral law, whether learned from nature 
or from the Christian doctrrne. Vide Progr. in 
Rom. vii. et viii., in " Scripta varii argumenti," 
Num. xii. The following is the doctrine of the 
apostles: — Obedience to the divine law is not 
the ground, or the procuring-cause, of our for- 
giveness and salvation. (And happy is it for 
men that it is not; for were it so, no man of an 
enlightened and tender conscience could ever be 
sure of salvation.) Faith in Christ who died for 
us is the only ground of our acceptance. Still 
obedience to the divine law is an indispensable 
duty in connexion with this faith; indeed, it is 
practicable and easy only while this faith exists. 
The strict requirements of the moral law cause 
us to see clearly how deficient and imperfect 
we are, since while we allow that the law re- 
quires only what is right, we are yet unable to 
conform to it. They also excite in us a deep 
feeling of our need of a different dispensa- 
tion, coming in aid of our imperfection. And 
by seeing our need, we become disposed to em- 
brace the provisions for salvation which God 
offers. Thus the law leads us to Christ, Rom. 
iii., vi., vii., and the Epistle to the Galatians. 

SECTION CXXIV. 

OF THE CONNEXION OF THE PARTS OF WHICH 
FAITH IS COMPOSED; THE CHARACTERISTICS 
AND DEGREES OF FAITH ; AND THE CONDITIONS 
ON WHICH IT IS SAVING. 

I. The relation in which the parts belonging to Faith 
stand to each other. 

Here the following cautions should be ob- 
served — viz., 

(1) We should not separate one part of faith 
fro-.n another, or insist more upon one than an- 
other, or imagine that the different parts may 
exist at different times. This mistake has been 
made by some with respect to the promises, 



(gospel,) and the rules of conduct, (law.) 
Some insist wholly or disproportionately on 
the latter, and thus alarm one who is just be- 
ginning a religious life, and who feels himself 
to be still weak. This is the fault of those who 
preach only the law or morality, who are always 
telling men (though they generally know it 
sufficiently without being told)"what they ought 
to be, without shewing them the proper means 
of becoming so, and how they may acquire the 
requisite power. Others dwell entirely on the 
promises, and neglect the law, instead of deriv- 
ing from the promises the motives and power 
to obey the law, as the Bible does, 1 John, iv. 
10, 19 ; iii. 3 ; Gal. ii. 20. Vide s. 123, ad finem. 
At the present day, the former mistake is the 
more common one, and therefore needs to be 
guarded against more carefully than the other. 

(2) We should not consider the manner in 
which faith arises in man, and in which one 
part of it follows another, to be uniformly the 
same in all cases ; nor should we prescribe the 
same order and succession as essential to all. 
The physical and moral constitution of men is 
so different, and the circumstances under which 
they begin to amend their lives are so unlike, 
that the same form and method cannot possibly 
be prescribed to all. The neglect of proper at- 
tention to this difference among men gives easy 
occasion to uncharitable judgments, to hypo- 
crisy, anxiety, and scrupulous doubts. 

The common representation is that which 
Melancthon has given in his " Loci Theologici." 
Reformation is commenced by means of the 
law, which convinces man of his sins. Then 
follows the distressing sense of the merited di- 
vine displeasure, and the desire of obtaining 
pardon. Here the gospel comes in for man's 
relief, and imparts comfort and consolation. 
Hence arise faith, and the fruits of it; and from 
faith, forgiveness of sin and the assurance that 
it is remitted. 

In this way does the moral change in men 
frequently, but not always, take place. The 
order is not important, provided all the essen- 
tial parts of faith are exhibited. Faith can no 
more be wrought in all Christians in the same 
manner than the sciences and arts can be learned 
by all in the same manner. With one, the ter- 
rors of the divine threatenings and punishments 
must be used in the first instance ; with an- 
other, of a more mild and gentle disposition, 
the infinite love of God and his promises must 
be used. Though beginning in different ways 
both may come to the same result. When we 
compare the accounts of conversions recorded 
in the Old and New Testament, we observe this 
very difference. They all exhibit the great es- 
sential of faith; but the manner in which they 
came to the possession of it is different. Books 



432 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



containing accounts of the conversion of parti- 
cular men are very useful ; but we should be- 
ware of making the experiences of individuals 
and the way in which they may have been led 
to faith a rule for all. Vide Toellner, Theolo- 
gische Untersuchungen, st. i. ii. 

[Note. — Neander has illustrated this import- 
ant point very fully in his " Denkwiirdigkeiten," 
and also in his " Gelegenheitsschriften." The 
F'.fth Article in the latter collection of Trea- 
tises, entitled, "The Manifold Ways of the Lord 
in the Work of Conversion," is worthy of the 
careful study of all engaged in promoting reli- 
gion in the world. It is a deep saying of Ori- 
gen, that what Paul said of his becoming all 
things to all men, that he might gain some, is 
applicable in a far higher sense to the Saviour 
himself, in the methods he employed while on 
the earth, and still employs in heaven, to bring 
men to saving faith. — Tr.] 

II. Signs by which we can discover the Existence 
of true Faith. 
To every Christian it is of the first import- 
ance to know whether he possesses true faith, 
that he may be sure of his being accepted by 
God. These signs may be reduced to two 
classes, which correspond with the instructions 
of the New Testament. 

(1) Christian dispositions. These are called 
in the New Testament ^ovr^xa 7tv£v[Mvto$, or 
7tvsvfia. Vide s. 123. Rom. viii. 14, 16, 
"The renewed Christian temper (tLvzvixu) pro- 
duced in us by God, by means of Christianity, 
affords us inwardly the surest proof (tjv^ap- 
tvpst) that we are the children of God," that we 
resemble him, that we love him, and that he 
loves us a father loves his children. Eph. i. 
13, 14, "Ye are sealed by the Holy Spirit — 
l. e., the Christian disposition, for which you 
are indebted to God, is a sure proof to you that 
God loves you and will bless you ; it is a pledge 
(dp/ja,3wv) to you of future reward." Thus, too, 
1 John, iii. 24, " By the spirit (that renewed 
temper for which we are indebted to Christ and 
the Holy Spirit) we know that we are true 
Christians, and beloved by God." The Chris- 
tian may therefore be sure that he has faith 
when he is conscious of hatred to sin, sincere 
love to God and Christ, to the good and pious, 
and of a constant effort to increase in holiness 
or moral perfection. 

(2) But these dispositions must be exhibited 
in the external conduct, by actions which flow 
from grateful love to God and Christ, and from 
other religious motives, (xaprcoi rtvf^aafoj.) 
These, therefore, are infallible signs of faith. 
Vide 1 John, ii. 29; iii. 7, seq. Christ said, 
Matthew, vii. 16, "By their fruits ye shall 
know them." Entire reliance cannot be placed 



upon evidences drawn from mere internal feel 
ing. One may easily deceive himself with re 
gard to his own feelings; and if a certain de- 
gree of feeling is insisted upon as necessary, 
those who do not come up to this standard, 
while yet they may have faith, will be easily 
led into mistake, and involved in doubt and dis- 
tress. Nor can we properly demand that every 
one should give the time and hour when he be 
gan to believe; for faith is not always instanta 
neous, but, from the very nature of the human 
soul, is sometimes gradual. Vide Spalding, 
Vom Werth der Gefiihle. 

Note. — The common theological phrase, in- 
ter num testimonium Spiritus Sancti, is derived 
from Rom. viii. 16. (The passage, 1 John, v. 
6, 8, does not relate to this point.) 

(1) This passage treats directly of the inward 
conviction which Christians obtain of their be- 
ing forgiven by God, from the new disposition 
which he has produced in them by means of 
Christianity. By this they are sure (a) that 
they are now free from the divine punishments, 
which they had reason to fear while they con- 
tinued unrenewed and followed their sinful de- 
sires ; and also (6) that they have a share in all 
the rights and privileges of believers, and shall be 
partakers of the promised blessedness in future. 

(2) But under this phrase theologians include 
the internal conviction which Christians have of 
the divinity of the Christian doctrine. But this 
conviction arises only by way of inference. The 
Christian reasons thus : — Because more is ef- 
fected for the moral good of men by means of 
Christianity than by all other means, (as he can 
say from his own experience,) it follows that 
this doctrine is divine, or that we must believe 
what Christ and his apostles say when they 
declare it to be divine. John, vii. 17, " One 
may be sure from his own experience that what 
Christ affirmed is true, that he did not speak of 
himself," &c. Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 13. This con- 
viction depends, therefore, on the experience of 
each individual Christian. He himself must 
have felt the efficacy of the Christian doctrine 
in his own heart. Hence this is called the ex- 
periment 'al proof of the divinity of the Christian 
religion; and Christ himself insists upon it, 
John, vii. 16, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 13. Every true 
Christian must have this experience; but it can- 
not be used to convince one who is not a true 
Christian, because he has never felt in himself 
the better influence of the Christian doctrine; 
still less can this experience be brought in proof 
of the divinity of the books of the Bible. It only 
proves the divinity of the doctrine contained in 
them. Vide Less, in the Appendix to his 
"Wahrheit der christlichen Religion," and 
Noesselt, Diss, de Sp. S. test. ; Halle, 1766 
Cf. s. 7, II., ad flnem 



STATE INTO WHICH MAX IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 433 



III. The (liferent degrees of Faith: the possi- 
bility of losing Faith and of falling away. 

(1) The knowledge, intelligence, and whole 
mental state of men are very different, as well 
as their natural constitution, temperament, 
and faculties. Hence we infer that faith can- 
not have the same degree of perfection in all. 
We are not responsible, however, for the 
weakness and imperfection of faith any fur- 
ther than it is criminal ; a subject, the consi- 
deration of which belongs more properly to 
theological ethics. The Bible accordingly 
distinguishes between a weak, imperfect, in- 
cipient faith, and a strong, perfect, confirmed, 
and assured faith. It compares the state of 
one just beginning to exercise faith, to child- 
hood, and that of the more confirmed Chris- 
tian, to manhood. Tide Romans, iv. 19; 
2Thess. i. 3: Ephes. iv. 13, 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1. 

(2) But no Christian can make pretensions 
to the highest possible degree of perfection in 
faith, although he should constantly strive 
after it. Great imperfections and innumera- 
ble defects always remain even in the best 
Christians, partly in respect to their know- 
ledge, partly, and indeed mostly, in respect 
to their practice of known duties. Tide Ps. 
xix. 13; Phil. iii. 12; James, iii. 2. This 
ought frequently to be noticed by the teacher, 
in order to humble the pride of men, and to 
excite more zeal and effort in the pursuit of 
holiness, and more watchfulness against sin. 
This consideration leads us to say, 

(3) It is possible that even the best and 
most perfect Christian should lose his faith, 
and apostatize. The Bible clearly teaches 
that one may lose his faith, and therefore fail 
of the blessedness promised on condition of 
faith. Yide 1 Tim. i. 19; vi. 21. Christ him- 
self mentions, (Luke, viii. 13,) the 7tpoGzaipov:. 
who indeed possessed true faith, but did not 
remain steadfast. And for what purpose are 
the frequent exhortations to constancy in 
faith given in the holy scriptures, if there is 
no possibility of its being lost? Of. Gal. ii. 2 ; 
Heb. vi. 4. seq. Still the way of recovery 
stands open even to the apostate while he 
lives ; Luke, xxii. 32 ;< Ps. 11. 2—19. Cf. s. 113. 
But from the very principles of our nature it 
is plain that reformation and the recovery of 
faith must be more difficult the oftener one 
who had begun to walk in the vray of holi- 
ness returns to unbelief and sin; 2 Pet. ii. 
20—22; 2 Timothy, ii. 26. 

Note 1. — Many have held that true faith 
cannot be lost. Against this opinion the 
above paragraph is directed, (a) Some fana- 
tics have held that faith could not be lost or 
destroyed, even by living in sin and vice. So 
taught the Talentinians, according to Ire- 
naeus ; and more lately, the enthusiastic Ana- 
baptists, Munzer, &c, at the time of the 
Reformation. They are condemned in the 
thirteenth article of the Augsburg Confes- 
55 



sion. (6) The advocates of absolute decrees 
also held that he who had once attained true 
faith could not lose it, because God could not 
alter the irrevocable decree he had once 
formed respecting his salvation. And as faith 
is made in the Bible an indispensable condi- 
tion of salvation, one predestined to salvation 
could not, in their view, lose faith. Of. s. 32, 
ad finem. Augustine was the first who held 
this doctrine. He was followed in the fifth 
century by Prosper of Aquitania, and in the 
ninth century by Gottschalk, although the 
latter expressed himself doubtfully on this 
subject. Calvin and Beza, in the sixteenth 
century, adopted this doctrine, which, to- 
gether with the doctrine de decreto absolute, 
was established by the Synod at Dordrecht, 
1618, as an article of faith, in opposition to 
the Arminians. 

[Note 2. — On the doctrine of the saints' 
perseverance there has been much needless 
debate. To prevent this, and to arrive at a 
just and satisfactory conclusion as to this 
doctrine, it is important to dismiss whatever 
does not properly belong to it, and to make 
the subject of inquiry as specific and simple 
as possible. 

First, then, it is no part of this question, 
whether it is in itself possible that believers 
should fall away; or whether they are liable, 
or exposed to this, or are in danger of final 
apostasy. The advocates of this doctrine may 
admit all this as really as its opponents. In- 
deed, it is often asserted by them (e. g. in 
the articles of the Synod of Dort) that be- 
lievers not only may, but if left to their own 
strength certainly will draw back to perdi- 
tion. 

Secondly. It is admitted on both sides that 
Christians are to be warned of their danger, 
after the example of the scriptures; and that 
this danger should be set before them as a 
means of awakening them fr\in slumber, in- 
citing to duty and watchfulness, and making 
them faithful unto death. 

Thirdly. It is admitted also on both sides 
of this question that the belief in the doctrine 
of perseverance will probably have a bad in- 
fluence upon those who think themselves 
Christians when they are not, and even upon 
true Christians in a state of declension. 

Fourthly. All, too, will admit that many 
who appear for a time to have Christian faith, 
and belong to the visible church, do in fact 
apostatize. 

When these conceded points are dismissed 
from the question, what remains at issue be- 
tween the advocates and opponents of this doc- 
trine ? Merely this, Whether God will actually 
preserve all true believers from fnal apostasy, and 
keep them through faith unto salvation? In ar- 
guing this point, nothing is necessary for the 
advocates of this doctrine but to prove from 
20 



434 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



scripture that God has purposed and promised 
to preserve all whom he has renewed by his 
Spirit. If this can be shewn, the warnings and 
exhortations contained in the scriptures, so far 
from being inconsistent with the promise and 
purpose of God, are the most suitable means of 
securing their fulfilment; since no motive tends 
so powerfully to keep Christians, as intelligent 
and moral agents, from apostasy, and to secure 
their perseverance, as the exhibition of their 
danger. 

As to the power of God to employ such means 
and exert such an influence on Christians, in 
perfect consistency with their moral agency, 
as shall hinder the hurtful tendencies of the 
world and their own hearts, and bring them to 
heaven, there can be no reasonable doubt. 

It may be proper to ask, in conclusion, whe- 
ther the objections commonly urged against this 
doctrine do not derive their chief strength from 
misapprehension and mis-statement, and from 
a vague use of terms'? Let the simple inquiry 
be made, whether believers will in fact fall 
away and perish ; and let this question be an- 
swered in a purely scriptural manner, and the 
common objections will lose their force, and the 
doctrine of perseverance be acknowledged to be 
adapted to glorify God, and to comfort and ani- 
mate the pious. — Tr.] 

IV. The Attributes essential to "Saving" Faith. 

(1) Constancy to the end of life, (jperseveran- 
tia.) This is called by Paul vrtofiov^ ; Heb. x. 
36, coll. iii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 58. (In Matt. xxiv. 
13, the subject is not salvation, but temporal 
deliverance.) This constancy must extend to 
all the parts which belong to faith. One must 
neither renounce the Christian doctrine in gene- 
ral, and apostatize from it, (Luke, viii. 13; 2 
Pet. ii. 20;) nor may he give up particular 
doctrines which are essential to the Christian 
system ; 1 John, ii. 24. He must remain un- 
shaken in his reliance upon the divine promises ; 
Heb. vi. 12; Col. i. 23. He must avoid most 
cautiously all disobedience to the divine com- 
mands; 1 Timothy, i. 18, coll. Ezek. xviii. 26. 

(2) Growth and increase infaith, (incremenla 
Jidei.) (a) We must endeavour to extend and 
perfect our knowledge of Christian doctrines 
and duties; Heb. v. 12; vi. 1, seq. ; Phil. i. 9, 
seq. (6) We must make constant advances in 
holiness, and in the practice of all Christians 
virtues. We must strive daily to be freed from 
our remaining faults, and to cherish and deepen 
our hatred to sin {poenitentia quotidiana\ 1 Pet. 
ii. 1, 2. Holiness and the practice of Christian 
virtue must become habitual with us ; 2 Cor. vii. 
1. The observation often made by theologians, 
that there is no pausing here, that we must 
either advance or recede in goodness, is true 
from the very nature of the human mind. 



(3) The evidence of faith by good worlzs. 

A. The various meanings of the word 2pya 
in the holy scriptures. A careful examination 
of these would have prevented many mistakes 
and controversies. 

(a) "Epyov denotes an action, in the widest 
sense, whether morally good or bad — e. g., God 
rewards man according to his works, Romans, 
ii. 6, &c. Hence epyov also signifies an em- 
ployment, business, office ; an office in the church, 
for example, as in 2 Tim. ii. 21, seq. 

(6) The phrase tpya dya^a or xaTjd, or tpya 
simply, frequently denotes particular actions 
which are conformed to the law of God, or 
Christian virtues, which God has promised to 
reward, in opposition to aixap-rlai. or I'pya novr.pd ; 
Matt. v. 16; Rom. ii. 7 ; I Tim. v. 24, 25, &c. 
In this sense the word £pya is used by James 
throughout the whole of the second chapter of 
his epistle. Cf. James, iii. 13. With James, 
then, good works are pious actions, such as are 
done with reference to God — i. e., such as flow 
from love to God and a spirit of obedience. 
Such actions only are pronounced by the scrip- 
tures to be true virtues, because they flow from 
religious motives. They are Christian good 
works whenever they are done with a particular 
reference to Christ. 

But this term came to denote, in a narrower 
sense, particular works of love, such as alms, 
fee; Acts, ix. 36; 1 Tim. vi. 18, &c. During 
the middle ages the Roman church made this 
particular sense the prominent one, and accord- 
ingly ascribed great merit to almsgiving, pre- 
sents to cloisters, churches, &c, s. 125. But such 
works are called good in the holy scriptures 
only so far as they are an active exhibition of 
love and obedience to God, and as the) 7 flow 
from religious motives. 

(c) Quite different from this is the meaning 
of the term I'pya v6 t uov, (sometimes simply 
tpya,) when used by Paul in opposition to 
Ttiaris, Rom. ii., iii., iv. ; Gal. ii., iii., &c. Vide 
Progr. "De dispari formula docendi, qua Chris- 
ms, Paulus et Jacobus de fide et factis disse- 
rentes usi sunt, item que de discrimine epyow 
vo/xov et tpycov dyc&wv," (1803,) in " Scr. Var. 
Argum." Num. xii. (Translated in the Bib. 
Repository, Jan. 1833.) Correspondent to this 
phrase is that in the writings of the Rabbins, 
D" "rtnn rrCyD, which denotes the fulfilment and 
observance of the divine law and of its particu- 
lar precepts, whether they are of a moral nature 
or not, and whether they are given by God 
through Christ, Moses, or by the law of nature. 
Vide s. 113, II., and s. 123, and fin. in the note. 

Paul allows, and frequently expressly de- 
clares, that whoever should perfectly obey this 
law, in whatever way made known to him, 
should actually live by it, or enjoy the blessed- 
ness promised by God as a reward, not because 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 435 



he could demand this as something which he 
had earned, but because God had promised it. 
But no man, in his present condition, can boast 
of such an obedience as this, and therefore none 
can hope to be accepted with God and blessed 
on the ground of his obedience to the divine 
commands, (f| apyw vouov.) Paul expresses 
himself very clearly on this point, Tit. iii. 5, 
coll. ver. 3; 2 Tim. i. 9; Ephes. ii. 8. The 
reason, therefore, why he excludes obedience 
to the divine commandments as a ground of our 
forgiveness, or why he holds that obedience is 
not the meritorious cause of forgiveness, is, that 
we do not in reality obey the divine law in such 
a manner as to enable us to rely on the divine 
promise above mentioned. And yet God has 
declared that he will shew mercy to us ; this 
must therefore be done in some other way, and 
by some other means — namely, by faith. It is 
on this account that he excludes the Ipya vo/xov, 
or our supposed obedience to the divine com- 
mandments, from faith in Christ, and from the 
forgiveness and salvation to be attained through 
faith, Rom. iii. 20, et passim. But as to apya 
dyo&a — i. e., the virtues performed from love to 
Christ, Paul would no more exclude them than 
Christ and James did. On the contrary, he 
derives them, as they did, from faith, and in- 
sists strenuously upon them, and in the very 
passages in which he denies merit to tpya 
vofiov — e. g., Rom. ii. 7 — 10; Ephes. ii. 10, 
seq. Cf. s. 108, 123, ad finem. 

Paul and James are therefore agreed in fact. 
And there is no difference in the meaning of the 
words rttcrres and Scxaiova^rai as used by them, 
but solely in the use of the word ipya. Paul 
speaks of the foolish mistake, by which one 
would obtain life and salvation from God by his 
supposed fulfilment of the divine law, while in 
reality he does not keep the law. James speaks 
of the pious, unpretending exercise of virtue, 
which is the first fruit and the evidence of faith, 
and therefore rewarded by God. Paul and 
James, as well as Christ, disapprove of the for- 
mer, while both of them, as well as Christ, re- 
quire the latter, with great seriousness and ear- 
nestness. 

B. TVTiat Christ and the apostles teach as to 
shewing faith by good works. They are all 
agreed in saying that an indolent and inactive 
faith (z'fxpa, James, ii.) is of no advantage, and 
is entirely contrary to its object. For faith is 
designed wholly for active life, and must be 
manifested and proved, so often as there is op- 
portunity, by the practice of holiness. This is 
what James so well insists upon in the second 
chapter of his epistle. His doctrine is, that 
every Christian must possess faith in God, (the 
knowledge of God, and that trust in him result- 
ing from this knowledge;) but that this faith 
must be exhibited in works, {fruits, chap, iii.) 



What good does it do for one to say, I know 
and honour God, and confide in him, if he does 
not prove this by his pious actions'? If Abra- 
ham had professed faith with his mouth, but 
had not obeyed when God commanded him to 
offer up Isaac, would that have pleased God? 
No ! He did not receive the divine approbation 
and blessing until he proved in fact that he had 
right conceptions of God, and that he placed 
unlimited confidence in him. In the same way 
Christ shews that man must be known by his 
works, (xaprfcH,) and prove by them that he 
truly fears God, Matt. vii. 16 — 24; John, xiv. 
15; xv. 14. And Paul, too, teaches that God 
will reward men for the uniform practice of vir- 
tue, {vrtouavr} apyov dyo&ov,) Rom. ii. 7, and 
that, while Christians are indebted for their sal- 
vation to the mere grace of God, and not their 
own works, they are yet placed by the divine 
commands under obligation to practise these 
tpya dya^a, Ephes. ii. 8 — 10. Thus he calls 
the virtues xaprtovs rtvavuatoc, (the fruits of a 
heart renovated by the influence of the gospel,) 
Gal. v. 22, 25. In Rom. viii. 1, 13, he says, 
that one is not a Christian who has not Ttvsvpa 
Xpccfrov. Vide other passages in Morus, p. 212, 
Note. 

The uniform doctrine of the hoty scriptures 
is therefore briefly this: — "Faith is the condi- 
tion of salvation. (Hence so high a value is 
placed upon it, from the beginning to the end 
of the scriptures.) But this faith cannot exist 
unless the heart is truly renewed and made 
holy; and this inward renewal is evidenced by 
good actions or works. Now this faith, and 
the holiness inseparably connected with it, and 
and the exhibition of it by good works, is re- 
warded by God. This faith and what is con- 
nected with it is therefore the condition of sal- 
vation {conditio salutis.) but not the meritorious 
cause, {causa meritoria ,•) for salvation is an un- 
merited 'favour. Vide Romans, iii. 24, 25; vi. 
22, seq. Cf. s. 125. 

SECTION CXXV. 

of the nature of christian good works or 
virtues; the relation in which they 
stand to salvation; and their meritori- 

OUSNESS. 

I. The true nature of Christian good works. 

Their worth or capability of being rewarded 
(not their merit) consists partly in their con- 
formity to the rules of conduct which God has 
given to Christians, (materiale acfionis,) James, 
ii. 11, and partly in the end to which they are 
directed, and the motive by which they are per- 
formed, {formate.) An action, therefore, is not 
a good work, although it may be right and law- 
ful in itself, when it results from impure and 



436 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



unworthy motives, such as vanity, ambition, the 
gratification of inclination, &c. The Christian 
performs good works only when he acts from 
thankful love to God and Christ, and in uncon- 
ditional obedience to their requirements ; in 
short, from motives drawn from the Christian 
religion, Romans, xii. 2; 2 Cor. v. 15; Phil. i. 
11 ; John, xiv. 15, 21, and almost the whole of 
the first epistle of John. 

We can here distinguish three cases — viz., 

(1) In acting, the Christian may be con- 
scious of this motive, and act solely on account 
of it. 

(2) But it is neither possible, nor requisite, 
that he should at all times, and in every action, 
be distinctly conscious of this motive. For one 
acquires, from long exercise in virtue as well as 
in vice, a habit of action. And since this habit 
presupposes a high degree of perfection, the 
value of actions performed under the force of 
this principle is not less, but often greater; for 
they imply a prevailing feeling of piety and love 
to God. 

(3) Filial obedience to God, or religious mo- 
tives, are not always the single and only motives 
to good actions, even in Christians. Their own 
advantage, reward, fear of punishment, the main- 
tenance of a good reputation, &c, influence them 
to action. These motives, in themselves, should 
not be entirely banished, as some rigorous mo- 
ralists, who are ignorant of human nature, would 
do. For God makes use of these very means to 
hold men to the observance of his laws. They 
may therefore be used by us as assistances. But 
it is clear that an action which results from such 
motives merely, cannot be called a pious Chris- 
tian action, or a good work, although in itself it 
may be useful, commendable, and even accept- 
able to God. Vide Rom. ii. 14, 26, 27 ; Acts, x. 
4, 34, 35. The teacher, therefore, should beware, 
in Christian education, of drawing the prinicipal 
motive from ambition and selfishness; for these 
principles will exclude every good and religious 
feeling, and introduce manifold evil into the 
youthful heart. 

In Christian good works, therefore, every- 
thing depends upon the state of mind, the dis- 
position (Ttvsvtia, Gal. v. 22) with which they 
are performed. That man only is capable of 
good works (in the Christian sense) who has 
a pure and prevailing love to God and Christ, 
and whose principle it is to practise all known 
good and to avoid all known evil, because such 
is the will of God and of Christ. God and 
Christ estimate the worth of an action, therefore, 
not according to the external appearance, upon 
which men look, but according to the disposition 
of the heart, which men do not see. Hence an ac- 
tion may frequently appear to men to be trifling, 
insignificant, or even blamable, while in the sight 



of God it is commendable and of great price. 
Such was the act of Mary in anointing Jesus, 
which his disciples blamed, Mark, xif... Christ, 
however, called it a good work, bt&ause it was 
a pious deed — i. e., because it resulted from sin- 
cere and grateful love to him ; and such actions 
only are, in his judgment, good works. Vide 
Tollner, Ueber die Beschaffenheit eines guten 
Werkes, in his "Theol. CJntersuch," th. ii. 

Note 1. — 'Good works are required from every 
Christian, so far as he is able to perform them, 
Gal. v. 25 ; 1 John, ii. 6 ; iii. 7. Cf. s. 123. The 
last clause contains a necessary limitation. For 
sometimes he finds no opportunity, or is placed 
in circumstances unfavourable for exhibiting, by 
his outward actions, the pious dispositions con- 
cealed in his heart. Moreover, those just com- 
mencing a religious life, and who, though they 
have real faith, have it in a less degree, (s. 
124,) cannot exhibit that perfect and mature 
fruit which is expected from advanced and con- 
firmed Christians. But God judges of the 
goodness of actions according to the inward 
disposition and the sincerity of the heart. In a 
good work this rectitude of motive in indispen- 
sable. Ephes. iv. 20 ; 1 John, ii. 6. We can- 
not therefore say that faith is always rich in 
virtues ; for it cannot always be so. Nor will 
his unfruitfulness be charged against any one 
as a sin, unless he himself is to blame for it. In 
this matter God is the only infallible judge. 

Note 2. — When the Bible speaks of the neces- 
sity of Christian good works, it refers only to 
Christians, and to what is required of them ac- 
cording to the Christian doctrine. No one who 
is destitute of the knowledge of Christianity 
without his own fault can be required to live 
according to its rules, or be punished merely 
because he does not. Nothing will be required 
of any one which has not been given him. 
Christian actions may indeed be more perfect 
and noble in themselves than others, because 
they flow from more perfect, pure, and elevated 
motives; but the good actions of those who are 
not Christians do not cease to be good and ac- 
ceptable to God because they do not flow from 
Christian motives. Cf. the example of the cen- 
turion Cornelius, Acts, x., and the declaration 
of Paul, Rom. ii. 6 — 11. In the former passage, 
(ver. 35,) Peter ascribes <j>6/3ov ©sov to the hea- 
then centurion Cornelius ; and in the latter, 
Paul calls the actions of heathen *pya a/yc&a ; 
and both teach that truly religious actions in 
heathen are acceptable to God, and will be re- 
warded by him. The doctrine of Augustine, 
therefore, virtutes ethnicse esse splendida vitia, is 
false. He taught that all which man does as 
man, without supernatural and irresistible grace, 
is sin. Hence he affirmed that the heathen were 
condemned because they could not but sin. Vide 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 437 



g. 121, II. [Cf. "Bib. Repos." Jan. 1833. 
Art. Augustine and Pelagius. — Te.] 

II. The Relation which exists between the Good 
Works of Christians and their Salvation. 

There was a controversy in the Lutheran 
church in the sixteenth century on the question, 
Whether good works are essential to salvation 7 Ge. 
Major, a theologian of Wittenberg, and some of 
the disciples of Melancthon, held the affirmative ; 
Flacius and others, the negative. Nic. Amsdorf 
of Raumburg went so far as to say (1559) that 
they stood in the way of salvation — a horrible 
position if it is understood to mean, that obe- 
dience to the divine law is damnable. But this 
was not his meaning; he only meant to affirm 
that the opinion that good works could merit 
salvation is dangerous to the soul. And in this 
he was right; but so was Major in his position. 

The difficulty may be removed by considering 
in what the salvation of Christians consists. 

(1) It is begun, the foundation of it is laid, in 
the forgiveness of sin, or justification in the nar- 
rower sense. This is the free gift of God, and 
cannot be merited by good works, s. 113, II. 
But this blessing is forfeited by one who omits 
good works, and commits sin. Vide 1 John, iii. 
6 ; Gal. v. 19 ; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. Good works, 
therefore, are necessary for the continuance (con- 
servatio) of this benefit. They are, when they 
can be performed, the condition of pardon, though 
not the meritorious cause of it. 

(2) Salvation consists in the divine rewards, 
or proofs of the divine favour; partly those 
which are natural, such as quiet of soul, peace 
with God, &c, and partly positive, bestowed 
both in the present and future life, as we are 
taught by the scriptures. These rewards can- 
not be merited by good works in themselves 
any more than the forgiveness of sin. But 
faith, and the good works connected with it, are 
the conditions on which alone these rewards are 
obtained, and the degree of reward is regu- 
lated by the degree of zeal in holiness which 
is exhibited; Matt. xxv. 20—29; 2 Cor. ix. 
6; Gal. vi. 7, &c. For obedience to the di- 
vine law is as essential a part of Christian faith 
as to trust in God through Christ, s. 123. Good 
works are therefore always described in the 
Bible as the effects and fruits of Christian faith, 
lames, ii. 26, seq. 

We may therefore justly say, as Major did, 
that good works are essential to the attainment 
of salvation, as a condition, and we may also say, 
as Flacius and Amsdorf did, that they are not 
to be regarded as meritorious, or the procuring 
cause of our salvation. Cf. F. T. Riihl, Werth 
der Behauptungen Jesu und seiner Apostel ; 
Leipzig, 1791, 8vo; especially the 4th Essay, j 
"Seligkeit beruht allein auf Glauben," u. s. w. 



Also Storr, Commentar zum Brief an die He- 
braer, th. ii. 

III. History of opinions respecting the meritorious- 
ness of Good Works. 

God has determined and promised to reward 
the good actions of men. But this reward is not 
something earned by men, (s. 108, II.,) which 
God is bound to pay them ; it is given to them 
of his free, undeserved goodness. Hence these 
rewards are called in the New Testament ^-aptj, 
owpsa, trtcuvcx;, (approbation,) fid|a, atityavos — 
terms which imply gifts and undeserved rewards. 
These rewards are intended to excite men to love 
God more sincerely and to yield a cheerful and 
willing obedience to the divine commands, not- 
withstanding the difficulties with which this obe- 
dience is attended. 

But obvious as this doctrine is to sound and 
unprejudiced reason, the great mass of mankind, 
of all ages and religions, have regarded certain 
external actions as meritorious and propitiatory. 
This error, as far as it is theoretical, results from 
false notions respecting God, and our relations 
to him. This is the reason why it is so preva- 
lent, in one form or another, among the Jews, 
the heathen, and Christians. Vide s. 108, II. 
But this theoretical error would have been easily 
escaped or exploded if it were not connected with 
the depraved inclinations of the human heart. 
Love to sin makes men quick in inventing theo- 
ries which will allow them to indulge in it at 
pleasure, and yet assure them of the favour of 
God. We shall here briefly exhibit the false 
opinions which have prevailed on this subject 
among Christians. 

(1) Many Christians, (especially the converts 
from Judaism,) even in the times of the apostles, 
cherished the opinion that their acts of supposed 
conformity to the law, such as almsgiving, sacri- 
fices, ceremonies, circumcision, and obedience to 
other particular precepts of the ceremonial and 
moral law of Moses, were meritorious. They 
even believed that the good works of their ances- 
tors were imputed to them. Hence Paul shews, 
in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that 
man deserves nothing of God for his supposed 
obedience to the divine law ; that the opinion of 
the meritoriousness of our own works is in the 
highest degree injurious; and that God forgives 
and rewards us solely on account of faith, with 
out any desert on our part, (Sixcuovv Swpfav, 5id 

TilOtBCdg XplCT'O'V.) 

But here again a mistake was made on the 
other side, and Paul was understood to speak 
lightly of the observance of the divine law. He 
himself complains that he was thus misunder- 
stood, Rom. iii. 8 ; vi. 15 ; Gal. v. 13. The same 
thing has happened to Luther, Arndt, Spener, 
and other Christian teachers of ancient and mo 
2o2 



438 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, 



dem times, who have followed in his footsteps. 
Even in the age of the apostles there were 
some false Christians, and even false teachers. 
They lived a sensual, disorderly life, and justi- 
fied this on the ground that Christians are free 
from the law. Against such a sentiment there 
is much said in the epistles of John, Peter, and 
Jude. Others believed that an inactive faith 
would suffice, and that works are not important. 
They were content if they were only orthodox 
in head. James, in the second chapter of his 
epistle, is strenuous in opposing this sentiment. 
He shews that true Christian faith cannot exist 
unless it is exhibited by Christian virtues. Cf. the 
Essay above cited in " Scripta Varii Argumenti." 
(2) Notwithstanding these clear instructions 
of the New Testament, these two mistakes re- 
specting the merit of works and the sufficiency 
of an inoperative faith, have always prevailed 
among Christians. The mistake respecting the 
merit of works was adopted into the whole sys- 
tem of the Latin church. This will now be 
shewn from history. 

A. During the dark ages, after monastic prin- 
ciples became prevalent in the Western church, 
the worship of God, piety, and holiness, were 
supposed to consist almost wholly in external 
rites. They believed that God would be induced 
by certain external actions to bestow favour on 
mankind. They thought they could merit his 
approbation somewhat as the day-labourer earns 
his wages by toil. Much importance was at- 
tached to works of beneficence, to almsgiving and 
presents, especially to cloisters and churches. 
They thus kept to the sense in which epya aya^a 
is sometimes used in the New Testament — viz., 
opera benefica, stopping, however, with the out- 
ward action, and leaving the disposition of the 
heart out of account. Vide s. 124, ad finem. 
They also insisted upon self-inflictions, fasts, and 
other external punishments, arbitrarily imposed ; 
just as the Jews formerly did. They even re- 
lied, like the Jews again, upon the virtues of the 
saints, and upon their treasure of good works. 
These views led to great corruption in morals, 
and a wide remove from the genuine spirit and 
true nature of Christianity. 

B. After the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, 
the schoolmen, and especially Thomas Aquinas, 
began to admit these views into their theological 
systems, and to defend them by logical argu- 
ments. They reasoned (a) from the term /xt6- 
£o$, which is frequently used in the Bible to 
denote wages earned, as 1 Cor. iii. 8, where the 
Vulgate has meritum; and also from many of 
the old Latin fathers, who had said, merere ho- 
minem salutem, &c. But by such language they 
meant nothing more than consequi, impetrare, 
in which sense merere is used by Cicero and 
other Latin writers. And in general in all the 
ancient languages, and in the Hebrew and 



Greek, the terms which denote wages, recom- 
pence, are used fox reward of any kind, whether 
deserved or not. The meaning in every case 
must be determined by the context. In the New 
Testament, what is called jwta^oj is also called 
#apt$ and Supja in the same context. We are 
said to receive fj.t,o$uv 8u>psdv. Thomas Aquinas 
taught that when man of his own accord per- 
forms benevolent actions, gives alms, endows 
churches, &c, God considers this as done to 
him, and sees fit (xquum, congruum) to recom- 
pense the act. This he called meritum de con- 
gruo. (b) Again, he appealed to the doctrine 
of Augustine, De gratia supernaturali spiritus 
sancli. This grace produces good works in the 
regenerate, which therefore merit salvation, be- 
cause they are derived from the Holy Spirit. 
He called this meritum de condigno. The unre- 
generate cannot perform any such meritorious 
works, because they do not possess this grace. 
He was followed in his opinions by other teach- 
ers ; and in the sixteenth century this doctrine 
was confirmed by the council at Trent. 

C. This false theory, so greatly injurious to 
morals, was vehemently opposed by the German 
reformers of the sixteenth century. Luther es- 
pecially argued against it from the principles 
contained in Paul's epistles to the Romans and 
Galatians, which were directed against similar 
mistakes made by the Jews. But, in the heat 
of the controversy, Luther frequently went to 
the other extreme, and sometimes expressed 
himself with too little precision and distinctness. 
He sometimes appeared not only to deny merit 
to those works which the monks regarded as 
meritorious, and to all self-righteous works, 
(Paul's works of the law,) but also to speak 
slightingly of Christian virtues, and rather to de- 
preciate than recommend them; though this 
was far from his intention. But afterwards, 
when his doctrine was misapplied by some who 
appealed to his authority, he became more 
guarded, and expressed himself more definitely. 
Melancthon especially took pains to guard 
against these perversions in the Augsburg Con- 
fession (Art. iv.), in his Apology, and in his 
" Loci Theologici." After the death of Luther, 
Melancthon and some of his associates endea- 
voured to analyze the subject still further, and 
to obviate all mistake. But they were poorly 
rewarded for their pains, si nee they were charged 
with departing from Luther and adopting the 
errors of the Romish church. Hence much con- 
troversy arose in the Lutheran church in the 
sixteenth century, which ran out for the most 
part into mere logomachy, as in the case of 
Major and Amsdorf. It was hoped that the 
Formula of Concord would put an end to this 
strife, Morus, p. 214. But the adherents of the 
Romish church still appealed to the second 
chapter of James, in opposition to Luther. He 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 43* 



and his associates did not know how to defend 
themselves against this argument, and did not 
sufficiently understand the difference between 
spya dya£>a and the apya voixov, which were re- 
garded as meritorious. This is the reason why 
he and the authors of the " Magdeburg Centu- 
ries," and some other theologians, spoke so dis- 
creditably of this epistle. 

Note. — The circumstances of the Christian 
teacher in our days are frequently such, that, 
after the example of Christ and the apostles, he 
must sometimes insist more upon faith as the 
ground of pardon and salvation, and sometimes 
more upon the fruits of faith, or pious Christian 
actions. He should take the former course 
when he has to do either with sinners who are 
sorrowful and truly penitent on account of their 
sins, or with those who have a self-righteous 
disposition, and hope that they shall be forgiven 
and saved on account of their supposed obe- 
dience to the law, and their virtuous conduct. 
Vide Luke, xxiii. 40, seq., xviii. 9 ; Rom. iv. 
5; Acts, xvi. 30. He must do this in order to 
shew that salvation depends entirely upon a dis- 
position of sincere and unwavering confidence 
in God — (i. e., upon faith,) since God and 
Christ, who know the heart, have regard solely 
to the disposition. In this way one who is 
proud of his virtue, self-righteous, and pharisa- 
ical, will learn wherein he is deficient. 

He must take the latter course — that of re- 

ommending good works, or the fruits of faith — 
when he deals with those who undervalue or 
neglect the pursuit of holiness either through 
levity, indolence, or the love of sin; who per- 
suade themselves that a mere external pro- 
fession of faith will be sufficient; who say, 
Lord, Lord; but obey not his commandments $ 
and who pervert the doctrine of justification 
through faith to excuse a life devoid of good- 
ness, perhaps openly sinful. Such persons 
must be made to see that their sentiments are 
false, and that there are some infallible signs 
by which it may be known whether a person 
possesses true faith ; as a tree may be known 
by its fruits. These signs are pious actions, 
which are the invariable attendants of faith, 
and which the true believer will never fail to 
perform whenever he has opportunity. Matt. 
vii. 16; xix. 21; xxv. 31— 4G ; Rom. ii. 6; 

1 Tim. vi. 18 ; James, ii. 

SECTION CXXVI. 

EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS WHICH ARE USED IN 
THE SCRIPTURES TO DENOTE BOTH THE EXTER- 
NAL PROFESSION OF CHRISTIANITY (FIDES EX- 
TERNA) AND INTERNAL MORAL IMPROVEMENT 
AND SANCTIFICATION. 

It is the general custom to treat of repentance^ 
conversion, renewal, regeneration, sand. 'ijlcai ion, 



in separate and distinct articles (loci) ; but this 
was not the case anciently. Neither the eccle- 
siastical fathers nor the schoolmen treated these 
topics separately. It was not until the sixteenth 
century that this method was adopted ; and the 
chief object of this at first was to explain more 
fully these scriptural terms and obviate different 
errors relating to them. But afterwards the dis- 
tinction was more finely drawn, these doctrines 
were more separated, and particular proof-texts 
were sought for each. But many of these dis- 
tinctions are not to be found in the Bible. All 
of these terms denote the improvement of men, 
and imply the same divine agency ; although 
sometimes the gradual progress and the differ- 
ent degrees of moral improvement are distin- 
guished. The better plan is, therefore, to bring 
all these topics together, and to treat of them in 
one and the same article, as, indeed, most theo- 
logians now do. So Morns, p. 220, seq., 3. 6. 
The case is the same with respect to calling, 
illumination, and similar expressions, which 
will be explained in Art. xii., Be operationibus 
gratise, s. 130. 

I. Scriptural idea of the words denoting Conver- 
sion, (ir.wrpofyf), £TriaTf,e'peiv, by which the LXX. 
translate the Hebrew zvp-) 
'ErtiGTpifyeiv frequently stands alone, some- 
times connected with Ini or rtpoj rbv ®sov, to 
turn to God. This term is derived from the 
very frequent comparison of the actions and con- 
duct of man with a way, and with walking in 
it; whence the religion itself which one adopts 
is itself called -]-h. But this term is used in 
two different senses — viz., 

(1) It denotes the moral improvement and ho- 
liness of men when they repent of their sins and 
forsake them. In this sense is the term com- 
monly used in theology, Ezek. iii. 19; Joel, ii. 
12, 13; Matt. xiii. 15; Acts, iii. 19. This 
turning is produced by God, or the Holy Spirit, 
by means of revealed truth. The same is ex- 
pressed by the word fxsravozlv, by which also 
the LXX. render the Heb. :-r. These two 
forms of expression are frequently interchanged 
as synonymous, as Acts, xv. 3, coll. xi. 13. 
41 The heart is turned away from the love of sin, 
and inclined to efforts after what is good and 
right, under the assistance of God and the Holy 
Spirit." Vide 2 Cor. vii. 11 ; Jer. iii. 12, 13, 
(an exhortation to the Israelites to return to 

■ »m whom they had departed.) 

(2) It denotes sometimes the external transi- 
tion from a false religion to the true. — the re- 
nunciation of idolatry; Hos. iii. 5 ; Ezek. xiv. 
6. Hence it is applied in the New Testament 
(a) to Gentiles who enter into the external 
Christian community, Acts, xx. 21 : xxvi. 18 

1 Thess. i. 9 ; (b) to Jew s becoming Christians 
Acts, ix. 35; xiv. 15; 2 Cor. iii. 1G. 



440 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



These two senses ought to be distinguished 
in the explanation of this term. For though 
conversion of the former kind is the object 
of the latter, yet it is not always attained. 
But sometimes the two meanings are con- 
nected together, because the first is the ob- 
ject of the second, and with many is actually 
attained. Thus when the apostles preach 
conversion to Jews and Gentiles, they mean 
both; for neither Christ nor his apostles en- 
couraged a merely external introduction into 
the Christian church. Still they require men 
to enter into the external church because 
there are the means of conversion found. 

II. Scriptural idea of the words denoting He- 
generation, (TtaTityyevscla, yevvda^aL dvu^tev or 
Stvtepov, avaytwdo^rcu. Also the synonymous 
terms, avaxuLvu>Gi$, avavsovv, xouvoj av^pwrtoj, 
xaivrj xtlais, x. t. h.) 

The word rtauyyjvm'a denotes frequently 
any entire alteration of state, by which one 
is brought into an entirely new and reformed 
condition, or placed in a better situation. 
The change indicated by this term is, how- 
ever, as Moras justly observes, in every case, 
mutatio in melius, p. 223, note at the top. 
Vide " Scripta Varii Argumenti," Num. vi. 
Thus Cicero (Att. iv. 6) calls his restoration 
from exile, naUyyivsaia, and Josephus (Ant. 
xi. 3) calls the restoration of the Jewish land 
after the captivity 7ta?ayysv£crta 7ta?pi8o$. The 
stoics spoke of rtaT^yyevsaia twv oXwv. In Ro- 
man law, the manumission of a slave was 
called his regeneration. In Matt. xix. 28, it 
denotes an introduction into a new and happy 
situation, whether the resurrection or the es- 
tablishment of the Messiah's kingdom be 
understood. 

When the Israelites spoke of a person 
changing his religion, they used the phrases 
birth, new birth, &c. When a Gentile passed 
over to Judaism (became a proselyte), he was 
regarded by the Jews as new born, a new man, 
a child just beginning to live. As such he 
was received into their church, and obtained 
civil rights. Even in the Old Testament the 

term "f^is used in reference to proselytes, 

- T 

Ps. lxxxvii. 5, coll. Is. xlix., li., liv. This 
might be called external regeneration. The 
term was afterwards used by the Rabbins in 
a moral sense, since it became the duty of one 
who had been admitted into the Jewish 
church to live according to Jewish laws, and 
to have a better moral disposition. This is 
internal, moral regeneration. The term was 
used in both of these senses by the Jews at 
the time of Christ and the apostles. 

Now it was not the manner of Christ and 
the apostles to invent new terms, but to bor- 
row terms from the ancient Jewish phrase- 
ology, and transfer them to Christianity. 
Hence we find all these words used in the 
New Testament in three different senses — 
viz., 



(1) To denote one's passing over externally 
from Judaism or heathenism to the Christian 
society, and making an external profession 
of the Christian, in opposition to the Jewish 
or heathen religion, which the Christian re- 
nounces. Thus Paul says, Ephes. ii. 15, 
" Christ has united Jews and Gentiles into 
one church/' (sis xaivbv cw^pcortov, which can- 
not here denote internal reformation, as this 
could not be predicated of all.) Cf. James, 
i. 18. Thus Peter says, 1 Pet. i. 3, " God 
hath brought us to the profession of Chris- 
tianity (avaytwYjaas j^uaj), in order to enable 
us to obtain salvation." Paul frequently says 
of those whom he had induced to make pro- 
fession of Christianity, that he had begotten 
them [yiwdv), Philemon, v. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15; 
and J>§iveiv, Gal. iv. 19. 

(2) To denote the internal or moral renewal 
of the heart and of the whole disposition of 
man. This is the object of one's becoming a 
Christian, to renounce the love of sin, and 
love what is good, and to practice it from 
motives of love to God and Christ. This 
state is effected in Christians by God, or the 
Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ. The 
creation of a new heart (reformed disposition) 
is mentioned in this sense, even in the Old 
Testament, Ezek. xxxvi. 26—28 ; Ps. li. 12. 
In other passages the term circumcision of heart 
is used, Deut. x. 16 ; elsewhere, a new heart, a 
new spirit, a new mind, which has God for its 
author, Ezek. xi. 19, 20 ; Psalm 1., li. ; Is. i., 
&c. In this sense Paul speaks of putting on 
the new man, and putting off the old man, of 
a new creature, after the image of God, Ephes. 
iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10, and <W%au'io0i,$ 
voo$, Rom. xii. 2, and dvavtova^av tip rtvevpati,, 
Ephes. iv. 23, seq. Here belong all the texts, 
in John and elsewhere, which teach that man 
must be bom of God, or the Holy Spirit — 
i. e., become his child, love him, in disposi- 
tion and conduct resemble him, that he may 
be loved by God in return ; for all which he 
is indebted to God or to the Holy Spirit, 
1 John, iii. 9; v. 1 ; John, i. 12, 13. Cf. the 
remarks respecting vlo^ssia, s. 119, I. 1. 
These different terms, therefore, refer to one 
and the same thing. 

(3) In many passages these two senses are 
combined, because internal regeneration is the 
object of external regeneration; exactly as in 
the case of i7tiaT?p£$sw. Among other texts is 
John, iii. 3, 5, " Whoever is not born of bap- 
tism and the Holy Spirit (i. e., does not conse- 
crate himself by baptism to the profession of my 
religion, and does not become, through divine 
assistance, a reformed man, a child of God, a 
friend of God, like him in moral character) can- 
not be considered a member of the Messiah's 
kingdom (paatteia ®eov)." Hence baptism is 
called, Tit. iii. 5, hovtpbv 7ia%iyysv8aiag, because 
we are not only solemnly admitted by this rite 
into the Christian society, but are likewise 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 441 



thereby obligated, according- to the precepts of 
Christ, to become reformed in character; and 
on this condition have all the rights and re- 
wards of God's children granted and assured to 
us. So the Rabbins expressed themselves with 
regard to the baptism of proselytes. And for 
this reason the most ancient fathers, Ignatius 
and Justin, call baptism dvayivvrj^. 

III. Scriptural idea of the term jxerdvoia. 

This word is used by the Greeks to designate 
a change in a person's opinions, aims, disposi- 
tions, with respect to particular things. Thus 
the phrase, eL$ pstdvouxv dyscv, signifies to in- 
duce any one to alter his opinion, and to adopt 
another. Polybius uses the word ixziuvotlv in 
relation to a general who designed to stake bat- 
tle, but afterwards determined differently. Plato 
contrasts rtpovodv (to use forecast) and fxeta- 
voelv, (to reconsider when it is too late.) In 
Heb. xii. 17, it is said that Esau could not ob- 
tain the alteration of his father's opinion, (pttd- 
voia.) In the classical writers, however, this 
term is not used to denote particularly an alter- 
ation in the moral state of the mind or heart. 
This use first prevailed among the Grecian 
Jews, and was derived by them from the Sep- 
tuagint. The Hebrew aitf, is commonly ex- 
pressed in the Septuagint Version by jxe-tavoslv, 
as Is. xxx. 15, though sometimes also by iiii- 
a-tpsysiv. The Hebrew oru is rendered in the 
same way, Jer. iv. 28. These significations 
run together, since we determine not to repeat 
that which causes us sorrow. Hence the words 
fis'tavoilv and /jL£?a/xs%£c$aL are connected as sy- 
nonymous, 2 Cor. vii. 8, coll. Luke, xvii. 4. 
This word, accordingly, like ETtts-rpo^rj, and 
other similar terms, is used in the New Testa- 
ment, in a wider and a narrower sense — viz., 

(1) It denotes the forsaking of a religion 
which one had formerly professed, and is pro- 
fessing a new (the Christian) religion, (because 
there is in this case a change of view and opi- 
nion with respect to religion;) Acts, xx. 21, 
where it is said that /jLt-tdvoia eij &eov is preach- 
ed to Jews and to Gentiles, in connexion with 
rttWtj £t§ Xptcfr'ov. Thus Luke, xxiv. 47, and 
other texts. Vide Morus, p. 222. In the same 
way as the return of the Israelites from idolatry 
to the true religion was called fietdvoca, could 
the conversion of Jews or Gentiles to Christian- 
ity be so called. 

(2) It more commonly denotes a moral 
change. And (a) it expresses the entire moral 
renovation or conversion of men, in the widest 
sense; and (6) the commencement of this 
change, when one begins to abhor the evil which 
he loved, and to form the sincere purpose of for- 
saking it. It is frequently used in this nar- 
rower sense in the holy scriptures, and this is 
its most common use in theology, as will be 

56 



further shewn, s. 127. This change always 
presupposes an entire revolution in the views 
and feelings of the subject of it; he begins 
thenceforward to love and practise good instead 
of evil. This was the great subject of the 
preaching of John the Baptist; Metavoiite was 
his continual theme, Matt. iii. 2, 11 ; Luke, iii. 
8. The same may be said of Christ, Mark, i. 
15. It here denotes a radical alteration, or a 
change by which an entirely new direction is 
given to one's life and efforts. Hence the 
phrases which occur so frequently, pttavoslv 
(X7to -tZiV dfiaptLuv or tpyov vsxpwv, Acts, viii. 
22; Heb. vi. 1. Hence, too, fistavoscv and srtt- 
atpstyzw are interchanged as synonymous, Acts, 
iii. 19, 26; Rom. ii. 4. 

(3) The writers of the New Testament fre- 
quently connect the two meanings of the word 
fjLSTfdvota together, since the object of an exter- 
nal change of religion is always the improve- 
ment of the heart. Acts, xi. 18, "God hath 
granted even to the heathen /xstdvocav el$ %c*r;v. 
The ancient ecclesiastical fathers, even in the 
Latin church, also connected with this word the 
idea of repentance and reformation in the moral 
sense; and Lactantius proposes well (Inst. Div. 
vi. 24) to render it by the word resipiscentia. 
But the word commonly employed in Latin 
theology was pcenitentia, by which the Vulgate 
renders /xetdvoLa; which is not, indeed, incorrect 
in itself, but often rather ambiguous, and some 
times quite inappropriate. Cf. Morus, p. 224 
s. 2. After the fourth century writers began to 
understand this word according to the Latin 
etymology, and to vary from the usage of the 
Bible. The influence of Augustine contributed 
to the wide diffusion of this error. He insisted 
upon the derivation of the word pcenitentia from 
punio or pcenio ; because man himself punishes 
his own sins, and therefore receives forgiveness. 
Pcenitentia est quxdam dolentis vindicta, semper 
puniens in se, quod dolet commisisse, De Pcenit., 
c. 8. He was followed by other Latin teachers, 
especially by Peter of Lombardy and other 
schoolmen. The unscriptural idea that poeni- 
tentia is not only repentance for past sins, but 
punishment, self-inflicted, on account of them, 
has prevailed widely not only in the Romish 
but also in the protestant church. 

This sort of pcenitentia is expressed in the 
Roman church by the German terms, Busse (pe~ 
nance, punishment, in the shape of a fine or 
mulct"), Busse thun (to do penance), bussen (Jo 
atone'), the last of which terms expresses more 
clearly the false associated idea. Many pro- 
testants have therefore wished that when the 
error of the Romish church implied in this term 
was abandoned, this term itself, which so easily 
leads into mistake, had also been given up. 
Christ has freed us from the punishment of sin, 
and an atonement on our part is not possibly 



442 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Even when we repent (pstuvosiv) — i. e., alter 
and reform, we make no atonement, but we re- 
ceive great blessings. Vide the Apology of the 
Augsburg Confession, c. v. and vi. But there 
is no word in German [and the same is true in 
English] which answers fully to the Greek 
petdvoLa. And if the scriptural idea of this term 
is explained in the early catechetical instruc- 
tions, the inaptness of the terms by which it is 
rendered need not be so much regretted, since 
people in common life are not accustomed to 
take words in their etymological sense. 

IV. Scriptural idea of terms denoting Holiness or 

Sanctity, (ayiwavvri, ayiaajjiog, k. t. A., also bawrris, 

oo-toj. Heb. &-\p, with its derivatives.) 

The words oy&oj, ayid£si,v, Bhp designate 
primarily whatever is singled out, selected, or 
best in its kind. Vide s. 29. It was first applied 
in the ancient languages to external excellences 
and privileges; afterwards, to those of an inter- 
nal and moral nature. Hence arose the twofold 
use of these terms in the Bible, which must not 
be overlooked ; they denote sanctitas externa, 
and interna. 

(1) All the Israelites are called by Moses 
D^np, and holiness is ascribed to them without 
respect to their moral conduct, but merely from 
the circumstance that they were (externally) 
separated from the Gentiles, and (external) pro- 
fessors of the true religion. The same way of 
speaking became common in respect to Chris- 
tians, who are frequently called in the New 
Testament ciyioc, nyiavusvoi, merely from the 
circumstance that they profess externally the 
Christian religion, and belong externally to the 
Christian community, and thus are distinguish- 
ed from Jews and Gentiles. Hence all who 
were received into the visible Christian church 
by baptism, were called aytoi, Christians, with- 
out respect to their moral disposition, as appears 
from the epistles to the Corinthians. 

(2) These terms are also evidently used by 
the sacred writers in a moral sense. Lev. xix. 
2, « Be ye holy, for I am holy." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 
14 — 1G. So ayta^uoj, in Rom. vi. 22, is the 
same as Soxaioavvrj in ver. 18, 19, virtue, righte- 
ousness ,■ asyuoavvrj, 1 Thess. iii. 13, and oyta^stv, 
v. 23. 'Aytacf/x.oj, in Heb. xii. 14, is that with- 
out which no man shall see the Lord. The same 
is true of 6'cuos and ocrtoz'j/j, Ephes. iv. 24 ; Luke, 
i. 75, ocftoi'jys xai SixaLoavvrj. It here denotes 
that blamelessness of feeling and conduct which 
is required, according to the divine precepts, 
from a true worshipper of God, and especially 
from a Christian, .and also the habitual abhor- 
rence of sin and love of moral excellence. Cf. 
1 John, iii. 7, 8cxaio$ la-ti za^wj ixeivo$ blxaioq 
idifu m Rom. vi. 18, bovtevsw Sixatonvvr), coll. ver. 
19, "He is dead to sin, and lives entirely for 
virtue." In this way the Christian becomes 



like God, and loves him from similarity of dis- 
position, and in return is loved by God, as a 
dutiful son who resembles his father is loved 
by him. Man is destined for holiness, and the 
happiness proportionately connected with it. 
Vide s. 51, II.; and when any one is admitted 
into the community of the saints, (the Jews un- 
der the old covenant, and Christians under the 
new,) his holiness is the great object aimed at. 
The church is designed to be schola sanctitatis. 
Otherwise, his admission into the church and 
his fellowship with the saints will be of no ad- 
vantage to him; indeed, his condemnation will 
be aggravated in consequence of these privi- 
leges. Holiness is therefore the evidence and 
result of conversion, or of repentance and regene- 
ration. One who is destitute of holiness, or 
who is negligent in the pursuit of it, is not con- 
verted, or born again, or has not repented. For 
an account of the nice distinctions and techni- 
cal definitions of the words conversion, regenera- 
tion, repentance, renewal, sanclification, which 
theologians formerly introduced into their sys- 
tems, vide Morus, p. 223. [Also cf. Hahn, s. 
523, ff.— Tr.] 

SECTION CXXVII. 

STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF MORAL REFOR- 
MATION ; ITS COMMENCEMENT J ON PUTTING 
OFF REPENTANCE; AND ON LATE CONVERSIONS. 

I. Scriptural Doctrine respecting Repentance and 
Conversion,- inferences from it ,■ and an Expla- 
nation of Technical Terms. 
(1) Two things are justly considered as es- 
sential to the commencement of reformation — 
viz., the knowledge of sin as sin, and the sor- 
row of soul arising from it, or bitter penitence 
on account of sin and abhorrence for it. Chris- 
tian repentance is therefore a lively knowledge, 
agreeably to the precepts of the gospel, of the 
sin which we have committed, as a great evil. 
This knowledge is called lively when it is effi- 
cacious and influences the will, in opposition to 
a dead knowledge, which has no influence upon 
the determinations of the mind. These two 
things must belong to reformation of every 
kind, and to whatever object it relates, for they 
are founded in the very nature of the human 
soul. Whenever a change takes place in human 
views and feelings, whether entire or partial, it 
is always effected by the same laws, and in- 
volves the same general feelings. In order that 
a man may renounce a particular vice, (suppose 
drunkenness,) his understanding must first ap- 
prehend it as a fault, and must see its injurious 
consequences. The first effect is therefore pro- 
duced upon the understanding, and next, through 
that, upon the will. The lively conception of 
the evil consequences of past transgression or 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 443 



of habitual vice awakens sorrow for sin, aver- 
sion to it, and a determination henceforward to 
avoid it. But Christian reformation does not 
consist in the giving up of particular sins and 
vices, but in renouncing sinful dispositions and 
principles, in the turning of the heart from the 
love of sin to the love of goodness. Particular 
outbreakings of sin may be compared with par- 
ticular symptoms of a dangerous disease; at- 
tempting to remove these will be in vain, unless 
the disease itself is entirely cured. If this is 
done, these symptoms of course disappear. In 
the same way we should strive, not only to be 
rid of particular sins, but to be renewed in the 
whole temper of our souls. 

The same things are essential to every kind 
of reformation — e. g., Jer. iii. 12, 13, where the 
Israelites are exhorted to renounce their idola- 
try ; and 2 Cor. vii. 8 — 11, which describes the 
feelings produced among the Corinthians by the 
rebuke which Paul administered to them on ac- 
count of their indulgence to the incestuous per- 
son; and these feelings were the cause of their 
reformation, or of their putting away the offence. 
Here /.wtdvoia is said expressly to consist main- 
ly .in %v7trj xata ®sov, godly sorrow, which was 
very beneficial to them after they became con- 
scious of their guilt. Cf. Ezek. xviii. 21, seq. ; 
Luke, iii. 10—14. 

Now since the nature and operations of the 
human soul are the same at all times, it is not 
to be wondered at that the manner of moral re- 
formation is described in the Old Testament as 
essentially the same as in the New. And, in- 
deed, the process of reformation could not be dif- 
ferent in the Old Testament and the New, since 
it depends upon the unaltered constitution of the 
human soul, of which God himself is the author. 
The experience of David, (after his affair with 
Bathsheba,) recorded in Ps. li., is full of in- 
struction on this point. It consists of the know- 
ledge of his sin and desert of punishment, sor- 
row, repentance, desire of forgiveness, the ear- 
nest wish for reformation and for confirmed 
goodness; also of love, confidence, and sincere 
gratitude to God. Cf. Ps. xxxii. 

The nature of reformation, and especially of 
its commencement, are clearly described by 
Christ in two parables. 

(a) The parable of the pharisee and the pub- 
lican, Luke, xviii. 9 — 14. The pharisee is very 
proud of his virtues and merits, and thinks no 
man is better than himself, and is fluent in 
praise of his own good works. The publican 
acknowledges his sins, is troubled, and peni- 
tent. He utters the simple feeling of his heart 
in the few words, " God be merciful to me, a 
sinner." And Jesus decides, that the latter went, 
down to his house forgiven by God, the other 
not. Here the man who believes that he shall 



obtain the grace of God on account of his own 
works or worthiness, through pride and selfish 
blindness remains ignorant of himself and his 
great imperfections, and does not see God as 
holy and just. He is not therefore inclined to 
embrace the doctrine of forgiveness through 
grace without personal merit, and accordingly 
he is not forgiven. This mistake is called self- 
righteousness, from Rom. x. 3. Cf. Dan. ix. 
18 ; Is. lxiv. 6. This mistake is one of the most 
injurious and dangerous, because the man who 
makes it persuades himself that he does not 
need reformation. 

(b) The excellent parable of the prodigal son, 
Luke, xv. The object of this parable is two- 
fold. First, to shew in what way a man comes 
to the knowledge of sin, and to the feeling of 
guilt; how he must humble himself, and ac- 
knowledge his unworthiness of the divine fa- 
vours, and yet have confidence, and lay hold of 
and embrace the undeserved forgiveness of God. 
Secondly, this parable shews how gracious and 
kind the feelings of God are, and how ready he 
is to forgive the repentant sinner. Vide Luke, 
xv. 7, 10. Cf. Tollner's Essays in his "Theol. 
Unters." Bd. i. th. 2, s. 390, seq.; » Busse 
und Glauben;" also, " Ueber die Parabel vom 
verlornen Sohn." 

(2) Sorrow for the sins we have committed, 
(\vjtrj, 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10,) which is also an es- 
sential part of reformation, is called by theolo- 
gians contrition, brokenness of heart, (Germ. 
Zerknirschung.) Our older theologians justly 
render and explain this term by the phrase Bene 
und Leid, (penitence and sorrow.) The term is 
taken from the Hebrew nn ndi and isrj zh (lit. 
wounded heart), Ps. xxxiv. 19 ; Is. lvii. 19 ; Ps. 
li. 19. Both of these terms are applied to a de- 
sponding, contrite, troubled mind, whatever the 
cause of the distress may be. Cf. Is. lxi. 1, 
and other passages cited by Morus, p. 218, n. 9. 
The lively knowledge of sin as a great evil, ne- 
cessarily involves unhappy feelings and sorrow, 
{dolor animi, 7,vTtr r ) Ps. li. 19; Jer. xxxi. 19; 
Luke, xviii. 13. And since we are drawn away 
to sin by the strength of our passions, and cold 
reason is far too weak to afford the necessary 
resistance, other feelings must be opposed to 
those which incline us to sin, in order to coun- 
teract their influence; for man is not merely a 
rational being, but is composed of sense and 
reason, (Germ. Verniinftig-sinnliches Wesen.) 
Now it is a great object, and one of the chief 
advantages of religion, to excite and maintain 
these penitential feelings. Sorrow for sin is 
highly beneficial in its influence, and is essen- 
tially involved in true and radical reformation. 
Hence Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 9, calls this penitence 
and sorrow, Xwt^v xata &sov, acceptable to God, 
agreeable to his will and purpose — because it 



444 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



contributes to our salvation, (s 1$ 6oiTf^piav.) And 
because it does so, it is a repentance not to be 
repented of, (6\fA,s'ta[A,i%rj'tov.) 

But this sorrow for sin is very different in de- 
gree both as to strength (intensive) and continu- 
ance, (extensive.) Men differ exceedingly from 
each other in respect to constitution, tempera- 
ment, and the entire mental disposition. Ac- 
cordingly, their feelings, and the manner in 
which they express them, are very different. 
No general rule can therefore be prescribed for 
all, respecting the degree of sorrow which it is 
necessary to feel, and the manner in which it 
must be expressed. We have no definite mea- 
sure of human feeling, no mathesis affectuum. 
Let this, then, be the only rule by which we try 
ourselves and others : Sorrow for sin is then only 
sufficiently great (for the purpose of reformation) 
when it produces in us a constant aversion to sin, 
remaining through our whole lives. It implies 
the sincere wish, Would that I had not trans- 
gressed the divine commands, and also the ac- 
knowledgment of the desert of punishment on 
account of such transgression. But while one 
is inclined from his very temperament to sorrow 
and despondency, or to violent outbreakings of 
feeling, another is naturally disposed to cheer- 
fulness, is more considerate and reserved, and 
gives little vent to his emotions. Besides, there 
are different degrees, both of actual sin and of 
inward corruption, in different men ; and their 
feelings of sorrow will of course vary accord- 
ingly. 

Sincerity of heart is the great, requisite here ; 
Ps. xxxii. 2. It is on this only that God looks 
with approbation. The accurate recollection of 
each particular sin we have ever committed is 
neither necessary nor possible. Still less are 
the external, visible signs of penitence and sorrow 
essential to reformation, unless they arise from 
the deep, sincere sorrow of the heart. Whether 
the feelings of the heart shall be expressed by 
external signs depends wholly upon the differ- 
ence of men as to natural temperament and or- 
ganization. As to tears, lamentations, and 
sighs, they are of very little consequence in this 
matter. Provided the heart be renewed, whe- 
ther it be with or without tears is a point of in- 
difference. The tearless repentance of a man 
of a sedate cast of mind may be more sincere 
and acceptable to God than the penitence of a 
person of a more effeminate mould, which is 
attended with sighing and weeping, but which 
often passes soon away and leaves no abiding 
effects. Cf. 124, I. II. We should beware, 
however, of considering persons to be hypocrites 
because they make these violent demonstrations 
of feeling — a rash decision too often made! On 
this point we are liable to mistake, and religious 
teachers have often, from the earliest times, 
been in fault here. Many made too much of the 



term contrition, and undertook to lay down de- 
finite rules on this subject, and appealed to | 
some examples and passages in the Bible, 
which are not, however, universally applica- 
ble — e. g., the repentance of David, Mary Mag- 
dalene, Peter, and the repentance in sackcloth 
and ashes mentioned in the Old Testament, 
which, however, does not describe reformation 
of heart, but the public external rites employed 
in case of pestilence and other great calamities. 
Such vehement expressions of feeling are not 
required of all men. The example of David, 
who spent three quarters of a year in trouble on 
account of his sins, is frequently mentioned 
here. But he had himself to blame for this; 
since he himself confesses, Psalm xxxii. 3, 4, 
that he endeavoured to keep silence respecting 
his sins — i. e., to exculpate himself before God, 
to palliate his guilt, and to avoid the necessity 
of humble confession and penitence. As soon 
as he acknowledged his sin and repented of it, 
God forgave him, ver. 5. 

Christianity does not lay down any definite 
rule, or prescribe any artificial efforts by which 
this moral change must be effected. It requires 
from each nothing but what is adapted to his 
nature. Peter wept, and considering his cha- 
racter and his crime, this was natural. The 
publican only sighed. Zacchaeus does not ap- 
pear to have done either the one or the other. 
And yet the penitence and reformation of all 
was acceptable in the sight of God. 

According to the precepts of Christianity this 
change must result in the suppression of the 
reigning desires of the flesh, and in restoring 
dominion to those principles of reason which 
are conformable to the will of God ; and thus 
renovating the whole man, and making him, 
before carnal (ciapxix6$), to be spiritual (jivsvfxa- 
fixos), obedient to the precepts of Christianity, 
and in a state prepared to enjoy the guidance 
and assistance of God, or the Holy Spirit. Cf. 
Romans, vii. 25 ; viii. 1, seq. 

Theologians call the reformation of men who 
were before entirely rude and savage, pamiten- 
tiam primam, or magnam ; that of those who 
are in a better moral condition, but still need 
reformation, poznitentiam stantium, or secundam, 
or quotidianam. And all, even the greatest 
saints on earth, stand in need of this daily re- 
pentance, though in different degrees. None 
can justly consider themselves perfect. All 
must acknowledge themselves sinners, deficient 
and imperfect. So the whole scriptures require 
us to feel ; and everywhere insist upon sincere 
and unpretending humility, and condemn the 
opposite dispositions. 

(3) Sorrow or penitence for sin must flow 
from the knoivledge of sin — i. e., from a con- 
sciousrtess that we have acted contrary to the 
divine law, and therefore deserve divine punish 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 445 



ments. Hence it follows that we should impar- 
tially examine our actions according to the law 
of God. Now when one sees that he has been 
ungrateful and disobedient, and rendered him- 
self unworthy of the divine favour; when, in 
view of this, he feels sorrow and sincere peni- 
tence, and begs God to pardon his sins and 
avert deserved punishment; this is called mak- 
ing confession of sin to God, (confessio.) This 
is not, then, as some would have it, a particular 
part of repentance. It is the opposite of con- 
cealing, exculpating, palliating one's sins before 
God, (refusing to acknowledge them as such, 
and to seek forgiveness for them.) Proverbs, 
xxviii. 13, " He that covereth his sins shall not 
prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh 
them shall have mercy." So Christ represents 
it in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke, xv. 
Vide Psalm xxxii. 3 — 6; Dan. ix. 4 ; 1 John, 
i. 8, where saying we have no sin is opposed to 
ofAohoyaio^ai a/xaptiav, ver. 9, to acknowledge 
and repent of sin. 

The Bible says nothing of the necessity 
which the Romish church teaches of making 
confession to men as to representatives of God. 
It recommends, however, the practice of con- 
fessing our faults to experienced Christians, and 
of opening to them the state of our hearts, as 
conducive to vital religion. Cf. James, v. 16. 

(4) Sorrow for sin and hatred and abhorrence 
of it are always founded on a previous know- 
ledge of sin; but they are produced in two 
ways — viz., 

(a) By contemplation of the divine precepts 
and the penalty threatened in the law against 
transgressors. The divine laws were given for 
our highest good. Every violation of them both 
destroys the happiness flowing from obedience 
and incurs the punishment annexed to disobe- 
dience. When the sinner seriously revolves 
such considerations as these, he must necessa- 
rily feel mingled emotions of shame, terror, 
anxiety on his own account, and abhorrence for 
sin itself. We find that Christ and the apos- 
tles made use of these considerations in order 
to awaken a salutary fear in the minds of their 
hearers. Vide Matt. iii. 7, 10; Luke, iii. 3, 
seq.; Heb. x. 29, seq. This is called by the 
schoolmen and in the Romish church, attritio, 
or, as Thomas Aquinas has it, contritio informis 
— i. e., imperfecta, inchohata, (dolor de peccato e 
metu poenarum.) 

(b) By contemplation of the divine promises 
contained in the gospel. When we consider, 
on one side, the undeserved love and kindness 
of God, exhibited in so many ways, and espe- 
cially through Christ, and which has sought 
in every possible manner to lead us to true hap- 
piness in this life and the life to come, and has 
invited and encouraged us by the greatest pro- 
mises, (John, iii. 16;) and when we consider, 



on the other side, our own levity and negligence, 
our wilful rejection of the means of good offered 
us by God ; when we consider all this, we musl 
be constrained to feel the deepest penitence and 
shame, abhorrence for sin, and love to God and 
Christ who have done so much for us. These 
motives have a great and mighty efficacy in 
promoting radical reformation. Jesus and the 
apostles use these motives more frequently than 
any others. Their whole heart, as it were, lives 
in them. Vide John, iii. 16; xxi. 15, seq.; 1 
Pet. iv. 1—3 ; Tit. ii. 10, 11. The schoolmen 
and the Romish church call this contritionem 
{dolor em de peccato e dilectione oriundum.) Thus 
this very consideration of the great blessings 
for which we are indebted to Christ leads to 
faith in him. He who knows that much has 
been forgiven him, loves much, Luke, vii. 47. 
Since Christ has done so much for us, and hap 
even died for us, we are led to place our whole 
trust in him, and look to him for all our happi- 
ness, and to obey his commands from grateful 
love, John, iii. 5, 14 — 21. We see that by our 
sins we are rendered unhappy, that by our own 
merit we cannot obtain the favour of God, not 
even by our best works. Hence we confide in 
Christ, and seek through faith in him to obtain 
forgiveness of God, ix Ttlatz coj Stxaico^vcw, Gal. 
iii. 24. In this way we become children of God, 
(Tloi ®sov 8ta TttWfcoj iv Xpiff-rGJ, ver. 26,) be- 
loved of God, and blessed by him. 

Many of the schoolmen and theologians of 
the Romish church reject altogether the motives 
first mentioned, asserting that they are not at all 
promotive of our moral improvement. The An- 
tinomians of the sixteenth century expressed 
themselves in a similar manner with many 
others. It is true that this attrition may be so 
abused as to lead to a despair which will abso- 
lutely prevent instead of promoting reformation. 
But still when it is cautiously made use of, espe- 
cially in the case of rude and uncultivated men, 
it produces a very good effect, and is therefore 
employed in the Old Testament, by John the 
Baptist, and Jesus himself, with many classes 
of hearers. Some are entirely incapable of the 
tender emotions to which the appeal is made in 
this second class of motives. Their heart must 
be broken and softened before it can become 
susceptible of the motives of the gospel. There 
is in this respect the same difference even in 
adult persons that there is between children, 
some of whom are ill-mannered and rude, and 
others docile and well-disposed. The wise 
teacher will employ different means with these 
different cases ; and so must also the teacher 
of religion. Vide Tollner's Essay (No. 1) 
41 Busse und Glauben." 

When one is reformed, the love of sin, now 
renounced, is succeeded in his mind by holiness 
diligence in duty, or pious Christian dispositions 
2P 



44 € 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



and a h;Iy Christian walk. Cf. s. 126, IV. 

Hence some theologians of the Lutheran church 
in the sixteenth century, took pmnitentia in so 
wide a sense as to include faith and diligence 
in good works. 

Moms (p. 216, 217, s. 2) has given a good 
summary statement of the different parts of re- 
formation here separately considered. The in- 
ivard man is principally regarded in Christian 
reformation. The object is not merely to re- 
strain the gross outbreakings of sin, but to rec- 
tify the whole disposition and heart, so that 
the subject of it will henceforth act from entirely 
different motives and principles. The holy 
scriptures, both of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, insist everywhere that the vov$, xaphia, 
rtvzviJLa,, 6 f'crco av$pcd7to$, must be renovated. The 
terms, circumcision of the heart, new heart, reno- 
vation, regeneration, new creature, all express 
this truth. Vide John, iii. 1 — 21 ; also No. vi. 
in " Scripta Varii Argumenti," above cited. If 
any one expects to succeed, by attempting to 
amend externally, or in any other way than by 
a radical change of heart, he will be disapoint- 
ed. Vide No. i. 1. 

II. Delay of Repentance ,- and late Conversion. 

This subject is treated more fully in Chris- 
tian ethics. 

(1) The danger and evil of delaying reforma- 
tion, (a) The danger and difficulties. The 
longer one continues in sin the more fixed be- 
comes his habit of sinning, and of course the 
more difficulty will he find in breaking loose 
from it. He will thus become more and more 
the slave of sin, and be constantly bound with 
stronger chains. The longer therefore reforma- 
tion is deferred, the more difficult it becomes. 
Besides, external circumstances are not in our 
power. Many die suddenly ; others lose the 
use of their reason, or in their last moments are 
entirely unfitted for the mental efforts which are 
requisite for attending to the important concerns 
of religion, &c. (b) There must always be an 
evil and injury attending late reformations, 
however thorough and sincere they may be. 
God proportions the rewards he bestows to the 
degree of zeal which one shews in goodness, 
and to the length of time during which he has 
exhibited it. Vide s. 125, II. One who has 
just commenced a virtuous course, and has 
made but little advancement in it, cannot expect 
a great reward. In the future life, he must re- 
main inferior to others, and thus suffer for his 
remissness and negligence. 

(2) The opinions of theologians have always 
been very much divided on the question as to 
the possibility of late repentance, and the worth 
of it. Vide the history of these opinions in He- 
gelmeyer's Diss, "de sera pcenitemia," p. i. ; 
Tubingen, 1780. 



First. Most hold, with truth, that late reform- 
ation is possible, and that God may pardon 
(though with the limitations mentioned, No. 1) 
even those who defer repentance to the last, if 
it is then thorough and sincere. They hold, 
however, for the reasons above given, that such 
late conversions are very doubtful, and that 
great caution should be used in speaking confi- 
dently of the salvation of those who put off reli- 
gion to the last, lest this should tend to confirm 
others, to their great injury, in their prevailing 
errors. It is unsafe for men to pronounce any 
opinion in such a case. For there is no evi- 
dence of true faith but the works of the life. 
None but God can look into the heart. But 
since God can look into the very soul ; since he 
will forgive, without exception, all who sin- 
cerely repent of their sins, and ask forgiveness 
through Christ, in the way which he has pre- 
scribed, (1 Tim. ii. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9;) and since 
the grace of God is limited to no time, to no ter- 
minum gratise per emptor ium, (s. 113,1.3 ;) there 
can be no doubt, in abstracto, but that God will 
really forgive those who seek for pardon, though 
it may be late, if their desire be only sincere 
and earnest. He will bestow even upon such 
that happiness and reward of which they are 
susceptible. The example of the malefactor on 
the cross (Luke, xxiii. 40 — 43) is justly refer- 
red to in behalf of this opinion. The Christian 
doctrine justifies us in promising pardon and 
mercy to all, even the greatest sinners, at all 
times, provided they will only accept these 
offers. To cut off, therefore, an unhappy dying 
man from all hope, and to thrust him into de- 
spair, is without scriptural warrant, and highly 
presumptuous and cruel. 

Secondly. Others regard late repentance as 
impossible, and hold that one who has deferred 
it to the last cannot hope for pardon; because, 
they say, late repentance never can be true or 
sincere, and this is a condition indispensable to 
forgiveness. They appeal to the example of 
many who in prospect of death gave signs of 
repentance, but who, as soon as danger was 
past, became worse than before. 

But (a) there are also examples of a different 
kind — examples of those who, like the thief on 
the cross, became repentant and believing in 
circumstances of imminent danger, and who yet 
have afterwards manifested an unshaken fidelity. 
(b) Those who advocate this opinion often mis- 
take the want of perseverance in faith for the 
want of sincerity in it. (c) The examples men- 
tioned do not prove that late repentance is never 
sincere and thorough, but only that it is not 
always so; which indeed is true. 

The great argument, however, which is used 
on this side is, that conversion is not the work of 
a moment, (not subitanea or instantanea,) but 
requires time, earnestness, zeal, practice. This 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 447 



is true from the very nature of the human mind. 
But this only proves the great difficulty, the 
uncertainty and danger of such late conver- 
sions, and not the entire impossibility of them. 
Many men, in whom the work of conversion is 
not completed, are still not entirely evil and 
destitute of all good. The seed of goodness 
frequently lies in their hearts, while its growth 
and fruitfulness are impeded and prevented by 
various internal and external hindrances. But 
this work may have been silently and unob- 
servedly going on in the midst of these difficul- 
ties. And now unexpectedly some external 
circumstance occurs as a means of awakening. 
The person hears a moving exhortation, is re- 
minded of some promise or threatening from 
the Bible, is placed in imminent danger, or in 
some such manner is aroused, and impelled to 
attend more earnestly to the concerns of his 
soul. These circumstances depend on Divine 
Providence, and God makes use of them as 
means for the conversion of men. This appears 
to have been the case with the malefactor on the 
cross. Probably there had been a long prepa- 
ration in his mind for the result to which he 
then came. The passage, Heb. vi. 4 — 6, 'A8v~ 
yctT'ov — 7tapa7t£o6vta$ — cwaxaivl&iv sl$ fis-tdvoiav, 
has no relation to this point. This passage 
refers to those who persevere in apostas} 7 , and 
the rejection of .religion. The phrase, dbvvatov 
scrti, means only that it is impossible for men. 
Cf. Matt. xix. 26. 

Those theologians who differ so widely from 
the Bible as to hold that the forgiveness of men 
depends altogether upon their holiness or obedi- 
ence to the divine commandments, and not upon 
faith in Christ and his atonement, are indeed 
hard pressed in this point. If they would be 
consistent, they must deny salvation to those 
who delay repentance till just before the close 
of life, and who therefore do not exhibit the 
fruits of this change. So even Steinbart 
thought. The holy scriptures, on the contrary, 
teach that God forgives men on account of their 
faith in Jesus Christ; that holiness is the con- 
sequence of this faith, and that without this 
faith in Christ man is not able to live holy. 
Now if a man, whose reformation begins with 
faith, is prevented by death from exhibiting the 
fruits of this faith, (which, however, he would 
have exhibited had he lived longer,) he cannot, 
on this account, be excluded by God from hap- 
piness ; although his happiness will be less than 
that of others who have pursued a long course 
of active virtue. Thus we might conclude in 
ubstracto ; the determination in particular given 
cases must be left with God. 

Note. — The work of Noesselt, "Ueber den 
Werth derMoral und spaten Besserung," (Halle, 
1777, 8vo, Ausg. 2, 1783; especially s. 220, 
seq.,) contains much on this subject which is ex- 



cellent. This work was occasioned by the unset- 
tled, partial, and indefinite views contained in 
many works on this subject, especially in those 
which held up the opinion that late repentance 
is impossible or of no avail ; such, for example, 
as that of Saurin, " On the Delay of Conver- 
sion;" Edward Harwood, "On the Invalidity 
of Repentance on the Death-bed ;" and Stein- 
bart, on the question " What Value can be al- 
lowed to Sudden Conversions, especially on the 
Death-bed ; and what is it advisable publicly to 
teach on this subject]" Berlin, 1770, 8vo. 

SECTION CXXVIII. 

REMARKS ON THE FALSE OPINIONS AND PERVER- 
SIONS CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF REPENT- 
ANCE, WHICH HAVE BEEN GRADUALLY ADOPTED 
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

Most of these mistakes have arisen from false 
ideas, agreeing with the depraved inclinations of 
the human heart, respecting forgiveness of sin, 
propitiating God, and the merit of good vjorks. 
Cf. s. 108, and s. 125, III. 

I. Penance of the Excommunicated. 

The apostles and other ancient Christian 
teachers held that it is the prerogative of God 
alone to forgive sin, and that men are bound to 
confess their sins to him, and to seek forgiveness 
from him. So taught Justin the Martyr (Apol. 
2), and others. But even as early as the times 
of the apostles the custom (which had before 
prevailed among the Jews) of excommunicating 
gross offenders from the church (a^opiafiof) was 
adopted by Christians, and was indeed necessary 
at that time. The rites attending restoration to 
the church became constantly more numerous 
and complex during the second, third, and fourth 
centuries. Those who were restored were com- 
pelled to perform public penance, {poenitentiapub- 
lica.} The excommunicated person {lapsus) was 
bound (1) to labour to convince the church of 
the reality of his penitence and reformation. 
He appeared therefore in public in a mourning 
dress; he fasted, wept, and begged for prayers, 
(contrilio.) (2) He was bound to make a pub- 
lic confession of sin, and to ask forgiveness of 
the church; and this, in order to humble him and 
to warn others, (confessio.') (3) His undergo- 
ing these and other trials and punishments im- 
posed upon him as the condition of his being 
readmitted, was called satisfaction and he ob- 
tained pacem. Vide Morini Tractatus de poeni- 
tentix sacramento. This was originally only 
church discipline, and nobody pretended that it 
was connected with the forgiveness of sins by 
God, who looks not upon the outward man, but 
upon the heart. Indeed, Montanus in the se- 
cond century, and Novatian in the third, though 
they were so rigorous in church discipline that 



448 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



they were unwilling to readmit a person who 
had been once excluded, did not deny that he 
might obtain forgiveness from God. 

II. Penance supposed the means of obtaining the 
Forgiveness of God. 

We find that the great body of Christians 
since the second century have entertained very 
erroneous apprehensions respecting this excom- 
munication. Many believed (although the doc- 
trine was not as yet formally sanctioned by the 
authority of the church) that a person by being 
excommunicated from the church is also ex- 
cluded from communion with God. But they 
also held that when the church forgives a person 
and admits him again to their fellowship, God 
also forgives him and admits him to his favour. 
And this opinion was more dangerous in its ten- 
dency than the former. The church, and espe- 
cially those who ruled over it, who had the most 
to say in this matter, came to be regarded more 
and more as the representatives of God. Vide s. 
135, 1. Hence great importance was attached to 
the external rite in the read mission of the excom- 
municated. The idea became prevalent, that 
God is influenced, and moved as it were to com- 
passion, by fasting, weeping, kneeling, begging, 
and sighing. In short, it was believed that a per- 
son could obtain forgiveness of God by the same 
external means by which the favour and forgive- 
ness of the church and its rulers could be obtained. 
And the teachers of religion often contributed to 
the increase of such errors by insisting injudi- 
ciously upon these external rites. Even Origen 
sometimes expressed himself in this unguarded 
manner — e. g., in Homil. 15 in Levit. After 
the fourth century, the service of God was made 
to consist more and more in mere outward cere- 



III. Auricular Confession. 

When the Christian church was much en- 
larged, the Grecian church in the third century, 
and the Western church in the third and fourth, 
commuted the public confession of the excom- 
municated for private confession to be made to 
a presbyter appointed for that purpose. Vide 
Sozom. ix. 35. This too was soon abolished in 
the Grecian church, but it was retained in the 
Latin church. Hence arose by degrees the prac- 
tice of auricular confession, and then, slowly, the 
whole system of public penance. At first the 
lapsi only were bound to confess their grosser 
offences to spiritual guides, before they could be 
reinstated and allowed to approach the holy sup- 
per. But in process of time, every Christian 
was required to confess to the clergy all his 
sins, even the least of them, before he could be 
admitted to the Lord's table. The clergy and 
the monks confirmed the populace in the persua- 
sion, to which it was itself predisposed, that con- 



fession to the priest was the same as confession 
to God ; and that the priests gave absolution in 
God's stead. 

This much-abused principle, that confession 
must be made to spiritual teachers and the heads 
of the church, is found very early, even in the 
third century— e. g., in the writings of Origen 
(Homil. in Levit.), and especially of the Latin 
fathers, Cyprian, Hieronymns, and Augustine. 
They compared the presbyter w^ith a physician, 
who cannot heal a disease if he is not made 
acquainted with it. In all these rites, there is 
much which is good, and which might be prac- 
tised to great advantage, and, indeed, was so in 
the early church. But afterwards, when tbi 
priesthood and laity had both very much dege- 
nerated, they were greatly perverted and mis- 
applied. 

IV. Penance imposed by the Clergy. 

At first the church imposed the satisfaction to 
be made by offenders. This was now done by 
the ecclesiastic, to whom confession was made. 
The penalties imposed by him were now no 
longer considered merely as satisfaction given to 
the church. It was believed, that by these same 
means God is rendered propitious and his judg- 
ments are averted. It was also believed that 
the teachers and ministers of the church are the 
representatives of God. These ministers were 
now frequently compared, as indeed they had 
been during the third century, with the Leviti- 
cal priests, who, in God's stead, imposed pu- 
nishments for the purpose of atoning for sin, 
such as prayers, fasts, almsgiving, and other rites 
and gifts, which were now looked upon as me- 
ritorious good works, s. 125. The ecclesiastics 
and monks had books of penance, in which the 
penalties were assigned for each particular sin. 
Vide Job. Dallaus, De penis et satisfactionibus 
humanis; Amst. 1649. 

V. The Doctrine of Indulgences. 

At last the doctrine of indulgences was intro- 
duced. This was destructive of all morality. 
The practices of penance and coifession which, 
at least during the darker periods of the middle 
ages, maintained to some degree an external 
discipline and order, fell at once into neglect 
and disuse. For by means of indulgences the 
people obtained remission of the penances, and 
freedom from the canonical or ecclesiastical pu- 
nishments of sin, which were imposed by their 
father confessors. These indulgences were first 
granted by the bishops, when an individual of- 
fered of his own accord to perform some good 
work, to give alms, to found charitable institu- 
tions, to build churches, &c. They were after- 
wards sold for mere money. After some time 
the pope appropriated the trade in indulgences 
to himself, and during the thirteenth and four- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 449 



teenth centuries carried on a wide extended mo- 
nopoly in this business. Indulgences could 
now be purchased even for future sins. It was 
the prevailing belief that these indulgences de- 
liver not only from canonical punishments — 
i. e., from those imposed by the laws of the vi- 
sible church, but also from the divine punish- 
ments, since the pope is the vicar of God and 
of Christ. After the thirteenth century this 
practice was sustained by the doctrine de thesauro 
bonorum operum, which the church, and espe- 
cially the pope, the head of the church, were 
supposed to hold at their disposal, s. 125. The 
abuses attending this practice gave occasion to 
the reformation in Germany and Switzerland in 
the sixteenth century. 

VI. Scholastic System of Penance. 

These erroneous opinions, which had gra- 
dually arisen, were brought into a formal scho- 
lastic system by the schoolmen, and especially 
by Peter of Lombardy in the twelfth, and Tho- 
mas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The 
whole doctrine of the Bible respecting moral 
reformation and a change of heart was thus 
changed into a matter of external penance. This 
became the prevailing system of the Romish 
church, and all these principles of the school- 
men were sanctioned by the Council at Trent, 
Sess. 14. 

The following are the main principles of the 
schoolmen — viz., 

(1) Poenitentia is derived from punio, accord- 
ing to Augustine, and therefore denotes the pu- 
nishment of oneself . Hence originally the Ger- 
man Busse, which signifies, punishment, atone- 
ment, &c. Vide s. 126, IV. 

(2) Each particular sin must be atoned for by 
particular satisfactions. 

(3) Therefore every Christian must confess 
all his sins to the minister of the church, as a 
priest and judge, placed in God's stead. 

(4) Conversion, therefore, consists of three 
things— viz., contriiio, or compunctio cordis, con- 
fessio oris, (to the priest in God's stead,) and 
satisfactio operis, (satisfaction rendered by per- 
forming the penances imposed.) All this was 
borrowed from the ancient ecclesiastical disci- 
pline. Vide No. I., on the distinction between 
attritio and contritio. Cf. s. 127,1. 3. 

(5) This satisfaction, or atonement, must be 
made by prayer, alms, fasts, and other external 
rites and bodily chastisements. Accordingly, 
Peter of Lombardy says, Oratio dominica delet 
minima et quotidiana peccata. Sufficit oratio do- 
minica cum eleemosynis et jejunio. Vide s. 108. 

(6) This poena saiisfactoria, which must, in 
the usual course, be endured, may be somewhat 
remitted, says Thomas Aquinas, by means of 
indulgences. But this principle was afterwards 
very much extended. Vide No. v. 

57 



(7) One who is not absolved of his pardon- 
able sins by rendering such satisfactions goes 
at death into purgatory, where, in the midst 
of torments, he must make atonement for them. 
The doctrine de purgatorio was propagated dur- 
ing the fourth century in the West, and univer- 
sally prevailed from the ninth to the eleventh 
centuries. It was believed, however, that souls 
could be freed from purgatory, or, at least, 
that their continuance there could be shortened 
by having masses said for their souls. Vide 
s. 150. 



ARTICLE XII. 

ON THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE ; OR THE DI- 
VINE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROMOTING RE- 
PENTANCE AND FAITH; S. 129-133, INCLU- 
SIVE. 



SECTION CXXIX. 

EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS " GRACE, OPERA- 
TIONS OF GRACE, MEANS OF GRACE," AND 
OTHER PHRASES EMPLOYED IN THEOLOGY ON 
THIS SUBJECT; AND THE CONNEXION OF THIS 
DOCTRINE WITH THE PRECEDING. 

I. Connexion of this Doctrine with the foregoing ; 
and the Import of it. 

The whole Christian doctrine is given by 
God to men in order to bring them to faith and 
repentance, and consequently to eternal happi- 
ness. For they are not capable of this happi- 
ness until they perform the conditions described 
in Article xi. But, as the scriptures teach us, 
we are not at present in a condition to amend 
ourselves, and by our own powers to fulfil 
these conditions, without some higher assistance 
and guidance of God. This incompetency is 
owing to the power of sense, and its preponder- 
ance over reason, or, which is the same thing, 
to natural depravity. Vide sec. 77 — SO. Now, 
though man needs a moral change, his will, 
according to both scripture and experience, 
being in a high degree depraved, he is yet 
unable, without divine help and assistance, 
either to awaken within himself earnest desires 
after holiness, or to execute the good purposes 
he may form, and persevere in them, or to 
perform the other conditions upon which his 
salvation depends. All the arrangements, there- 
fore, which God has made, in order to produce 
in those who live in Christian lands faith in 
Christ and a change of heart, and to secure 
their continuance, and thus to bring men to the 
enjoyment of the promised salvation, are called 
by the general name of grace, or the operations 
2p2 



450 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



of divine grace, {operationes gratiae, German, 
Gnadenwirkungen.) 

II. The Various Names by which these Operations 
are commonly designated in Theology. 

(1) Gratia. By this term is understood, in 
theology, the divine operations or power {assist- 
ance) exerted in producing repentance or con- 
version. It is contrasted with nature, and by 
this is meant, the natural powers of man, which, 
on account of his depravity, are regarded as too 
weak and insufficient to effect this moral reno- 
vation, and therefore need to be elevated and 
strengthened by God. The state of one who is 
enlightened by Christian doctrine, and by a 
faithful use of it, under divine assistance, is re- 
newed, is called a state of grace, (status gratiae.) 
This is opposed to the natural state, {status na- 
turae, or naturalis,) by which is meant the state 
of one who is not as yet enlightened by the 
Christian doctrine, or renovated by its influ- 
ence, and has not yet experienced the assist- 
ance of God. Morus, pages 234, 235. Augus- 
tine first used the word gratia to denote the su- 
pernatural agency of God in conversion. He 
held this agency to be, in reality, miraculous, 
and therefore irresistible. Vide sec. 132. This 
use of the term has since been retained in theo- 
logy, even by those who have discarded the er- 
roneous opinions of Augustine. 

Xaptj is used in the Bible to denote (a) the 
undeserved divine favour towards men in general ; 
(b) the result and proof of this favour in the par- 
ticular blessings bestowed ; and (c) more espe- 
cially the blessings for which we are indebted to 
Christ, pardon, the forgiveness of sins, and all 
the Christian privileges connected with forgive- 
ness. Hence all the operations of God on the 
hearts nf men, in promoting repentance and holi- 
ness, are comprehended by the sacred writers 
under the term %dp^, as being the most distin- 
guished favours; although these are not the 
only favours intended by this term in its scrip- 
tural usage, but the others now mentioned are 
also often designated by it. Vide s. 88, II., 
note. 

The whole series of operations and means 
which God employs to bring men to the enjoy- 
ment of the blessedness procured by Christ is 
called in theology, ceconomia gratiae, the oecono- 
my or dispensation of grace, (Germ. Gnadenai> 
stall, or Einrichtung.) Theologians distinguish 
here (a) actus, or operationes gratiae — i. e., the 
gracious, salutary influences (also called auxilia 
gratiae) by which men are brought to salvation, 
and (j8) the media gratiae — i. e., the means 
which God employs in exerting these influ- 
ences on the hearts of men; the means of re- 
pentance or holiness. These means are, the 
Word of God — the divine doctrine, especially 
■that made known through Christ. The theolo- 



gians of Tubingen have sometimes given the 
name gratia applicatrix to these divine opera- 
tions, because, through them, God applies to us 
the merit of Christ to be embraced by faith — 
i. e., he places us in a condition in which we 
actually realize the fruits of Christ's merits. 

(2) These operationes gratiae are sometimes 
called the office of the Holy Spirit, {officium, or 
munus Spiritus Sancti, or better, his opus, busi- 
ness, work, cf. s. 105, I. 2,) because the sancti- 
fying divine influences are frequently ascribed 
in the scriptures to the Holy Spirit. Some the- 
ologians have ascribed a fourfold, and others a 
fivefold office to the Spirit, in renewing the 
heart of man — viz., clencticum, didacticum, pae- 
deuticum, paraclcticum, and others, epanorthoti- 
cum. A different division is made by others. 
This form of the doctrine is derived from the 
passage, John, xvi. 7 — 15. But there the thing 
principally intended is the instruction which 
the apostles should receive from the Holy 
Spirit, by which they themselves should be 
enabled to teach men, to exhort them to repent- 
ance, and to convince (tkiyxw) them of their 
unbelief. This passage, then, does not speak 
of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit 
on the hearts of all Christians; though all these 
renewing influences are, beyond a question, as- 
cribed everywhere in the scriptures to God, and 
especially to the Holy Spirit. Vide s. 131. 

Note. — The various, and mostly fruitless, 
controversies which have prevailed among the- 
ologians, especially since the time of Augus- 
tine, respecting the manner in which the agency 
of God is exerted in renewing the heart of man, 
and likewise the various technical terms and 
fine distinctions which have been introduced, 
have rendered this article one of the most diffi- 
cult and involved in the whole system of theo- 
logy. These subtleties, however, should have 
no place in the religious instruction given to the 
unlearned Christian. It is sufficient for him to 
know (1) that he owes his renewal not to him- 
self and his own powers, but (2) that it is the 
result of that powerful divine assistance which 
God denies to none for this purpose; (3) that 
faith and repentance are not produced by an ir- 
resistible influence, but that man can resist 
them ; (4) that in the case of those who enjoy 
the Word of God (revealed religion), the sav- 
ing change is effected by God, through this 
Word, as a means ; and that (5) those, there- 
fore, who enjoy the Word of God are to expect 
no divine assistance entirely disconnected from 
it, though they may look for this assistance in 
connexion with the faithful use of the Word of 
God; and that, accordingly, (6) man must not 
be passive and supine in this work, but care- 
fully use all the opportunities and means which 
divine grace affords him. 

Erasmus remarked in his work, " Contra 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 451 



librum Lutheri de servo arbitrio," that it is not 
essential that one should be able to determine 
accurately and logically the manner in which 
grace operates on the heart, if he only inwardly 
experiences these renewing' influences. Not 
every one who imagines that he understands 
the manner in which the divine agency is ex- 
erted has himself, of necessity, actually expe- 
rienced it, and the reverse. Nor is it either ne- 
cessary or possible, in particular cases, to deter- 
mine definitely how much man himself (natura) 
has contributed to his own improvement, and 
how much grace has done for him, provided he 
sincerely believes that he owes his entire re- 
newal to the unmerited divine compassion. 
Vide Morus, p. 229, note, and p. 236, 237. 

SECTION CXXX. 

WHAT ARE THE OPERATIONS OF DIVINE GRACE 
FOR PROMOTING THE REPENTANCE AND SALVA- 
TION OF THOSE WHO LIVE IN CHRISTIAN LANDS ; 
AND WHAT MEANS DOES GOD EMPLOY IN EXERT- 
ING THESE INFLUENCES ON THEIR HEARTS? 

I. In what the Operations of Divine Grace consist ; 
and in what order they follow. 

We shall first exhibit this doctrine in the form 
in which it is commonly treated in theological 
systems, and then shew how it may be more 
simply and intelligibly represented. 

(1) The common method in theological 
schools is to describe these various divine ope- 
rations by figurative terms drawn from the 
Bible, often using them, however, in a differ- 
ent sense from that in which they are there 
used, and then to treat particularly and sepa- 
rately of calling, illumination, regeneration, 
union with God, sanctifcation, and renovation. 
The result of this has been, that these particu- 
lar parts are conceived of as different and dis- 
tinct, while in truth they are most intimately 
connected. Vide s. 126, in prin. Theologians 
make the following division of these influences, 
and suppose them to follow in this order: — (a) 
Man is invited by the truths of the Christian 
religion to repent and accept the salvation of- 
fered him, (vocatio.) (6) He now attains a pro- 
per, lively, and salutary knowledge of Chris- 
tian truth, (illuminatio.) (c) W T hen the under- 
standing entertains just views, then the will is 
renewed. Good feelings and dispositions arise 
in place of sinful ones, (regeneratio.) (d) This 
work of illumination and regeneration must be 
carried on by ever-increasing divine -influences; 
and thus progressive sanctification, or entire 
holiness, will be effected; and the higher the 
degrees of divine influence, the more closely 
will man become united with God, (xcnio mys- 
tica.) The proper scriptural import of most of 
these terms was explained s. 126 ; and the unio 



myslica in s. 119, I. 3. Cf. Morus, p. 232. 
Calling and illumination still remain to be ex- 
plained. 

(a) Illumination. This word is commonly 
explained in theology in such a way as to ren- 
der it applicable only to the true believer. It 
denotes that true and living knowledge of the 
doctrines of salvation which has a powerful effi- 
cacy upon the will, which is not the case with 
the knowledge which unregenerate men pos- 
sess. So that, as theologians explain it, illu- 
minare aliquem is the same as cum effectu salu- 
tari docere aliquem. Of such a kind, indeed, 
must our knowledge be, in order to be salutary 
and saving; and to make it so is the object of 
the divine influences. In the Bible, however, 
this term is differently used in a wider and nar- 
rower sense. To enlighten, $<*>*% ew, "ran, 
means, (a) to instruct, teach. It is used by the 
LXX. as synonymous with hihrnxtw, x. t. %. 
And human teachers are said to enlighten men 
as well as God. Thus, Eph. i. 18, "The eyes 
of the understanding being enlightened ;" and 
iii. 9, $uti£eLv; and 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. vi. 4, 
tyu>tL<3fi6$. For <j>wj is intelligence, clear know- 
ledge, and the opposite, 6x6to$, is ignorance. 
Of the same import is the phrase, cwolytw tovs 
o^afytot-f, Acts, xxvi. 18, &c. All this is the 
same as the phrase, Bovvav yvZxsiv acctqpuas, 
Luke, i. 77. (jS) Light and darkness also sig- 
nify prosperity and adversity. Hence, in the 
scriptural use, (y) both meanings are some- 
times united in these words, (in the widest 
sense) — instruction, and the happiness which 
results from it. Thus Christ is said $«*t£W 
tbv xoa/j-ov, and to be tyus xogjaov, a teacher and 
benefactor of the world, John, i. 4; viii. 12. In 
the scriptures, therefore, illumination signifies, 
instruction in those truths which God gives to 
men for their salvation. It is always the end 
of this illumination to influence the will and to 
promote holiness; but through the fault of man 
this end is not always attained. Those with 
respect to whom the design of God is attained 
are savingly enlightened. But in a wider sense 
even the wicked may be said, according to the 
scripture use of this term, to be enlightened — i. 
e., converted. Hence q>u>?iG$ivt£$ is frequently 
a general name of those who live in Christian 
lands, because they are better instructed, al- 
though they are not all savingly enlightened. 

(6) Calling, gracious calling. Theologians 
understand by this term the offer of the bless- 
ings purchased by Christ which is made to 
men, whether they accept the offer or not. This 
use of the term has its origin principally in 
some of the parables of Christ, in which he de- 
scribes the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, 
or Christian privileges, under the image of a 
great feast, to which many guests (xexx^emw) 
are invited, many of whom despise the invita- 



452 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



tion, and only a few accept it, as Matt. xxii. 3, 
seq. Now some have undertaken to apply this 
beautiful figure employed by Christ to all the 
cases in which acJwJffis, xtojtol, xa%slv occur in 
the apostolical writings, by which the greatest 
violence is done to these terms. In most of the 
passages of the New Testament, in which 
xatelv stands without any further qualification, 
it signifies, not merely to offer Christian privi- 
leges to any one, but actually to impart them. 
It denotes admission into the Christian church, 
and the enjoyment of Christian rights. K^tol 
are those who have not only received an invita- 
tion to become Christians, but are real Chris- 
tians, (such as are admitted;) and xhrjoi$ is, in 
general, that divine favour conferred on any one 
by which God counts him worthy of the privi- 
leges of Christianity. It is therefore frequently 
a blessing bestowed only upon actual Chris- 
tians. KV/jcaj therefore frequently signifies the 
particular advantages which any one obtains by 
means of Christianity. Vide Romans, i. 7; 2 
Thess. ii. 14; 2 Peter, i. 3; Eph. iv. 4, ixrils 
x%r t asioi. Heb. iii. 1, xV/Jtfcs irtovpdvios, &c. ; 
and when Christ says, Matt. xx. 14, many are 
called, (enjoy the advantages of Christian in- 
struction,) few belong to the chosen, (those who 
are truly good and acceptable to God.) 

But V)hat is the origin of this use? From the 
ancient use of the words tnp and xo.%tlv. They 
were used to denote calling — i. e., accepting, re- 
ceiving ; designing or nominating any one to a 
particular service, employment, office, privilege, 
&c. Hence it was said of priests and prophets 
whom God took into his service, that they were 
called; and so of Abraham, whom he chose to 
be his peculiar friend ; and of the Israelites, 
whom he received and selected from others, as 
his own people — e. g., Is. xlviii. 12. The 
particular members of the Christian society to 
whom this benefit happened are called xX-rfioL 
Thus Paul uses the words x%rpt$, and xoXzlv of 
the external election of the Israelites to be the 
people of God, Rom. xi. 29, and ix. 11. This 
phraseology was now applied to Christians, 
denoting partly their external reception in the 
Christian community, (Rom. ix. 24,) and partly 
all the advantages and blessings which they re- 
ceive through Christianity. We are able, there- 
fore, according to Morus, to distinguish three 
different uses of the word xoXzLv in the New 
Testament, when it is used in reference to reli- 
gion — viz., (a) to admonish or counsel any one 
for his best good ; (6) to instruct him as to his 
welfare, to point out to him and furnish him the 
means of attaining it, (faith in Christ, which is 
active in good works;) (c) to offer and promise 
this good to any one. So in the parables of 
Christ.. When, therefore, God is said to call 
any one, the meaning is, in the theological 
sense, that he teaches him, or causes him to be 



instructed in the truths of salvation, that he may 
embrace them, and act accordingly, and that he 
promises him all the blessings and privileges 
connected with the Christian doctrine. 

(2) The method best adapted to the nature 
of the subject is to divide all which God does 
to assist us in obtaining the blessings promised 
in the gospel into three principal classes — viz., 

First. The first divine influences are in- 
tended to communicate to man the knowledge 
of the truths of the Christian religion, and of 
the blessedness purchased by Christ for man- 
kind, (illuminatio, in the wider sense.) This 
must necessarily come first; for how can a man 
be disposed to desire or accept a divine favour 
of which he knows nothing 1 ? Paul therefore 
says, very justly, Rom. x. 14, "How should 
they serve God in whom they do not believe ? 
And how should they believe in him of whom 
they know nothing (ol ovx rjxovjav) 1 And how 
should they know anything of him without be- 
ing instructed ?" By this instruction man be- 
comes acquainted with the divine decree, (pre- 
destinatio,) that the happiness promised through 
Christ is intended even for him, and that he 
must appropriate it to himself; that Christ has 
redeemed him, died for him; and that he there- 
fore may obtain the forgiveness of sin, and eter- 
nal salvation, &c. In this way man is invited 
to receive and obey the Christian doctrine, that 
his heart may be thus disposed ; and this is 
called vocatio, in the widest sense. 

This calling is sometimes said to be universal. 
If by this is meant that the Christian religion 
and the blessedness attainable by it is actually 
offered to all, and that all have opportunity to 
become acquainted with it, and that those who 
do not know and receive it can blame only 
themselves, the statement is false, and contrary 
to historical fact. For the blessings of Chris- 
tianity are not published, even to the present 
day, to all nations, to say nothing of all men ; 
because God must know that at present all are 
not prepared to receive these blessings, though 
doubtless he does not wholly neglect even such, 
but in a different way conducts them to all that 
happiness of which they are capable, and will 
doubtless continue to do so throughout the future 
world. Vide s. 121, II. Cf. s. 88, II. 

In another sense, however, this gracious call- 
ing is truly and scripturally said to be univer- 
sal; in the sense, namely, (a) that all people 
and individuals have free access to the grace of 
God in Christ as soon as they have opportunity 
to become acquainted with it ; and (6) that every 
real Christian, without, exception, may enjoy the 
whole sum of blessedness procured by Christ, 
by complying with the prescribed conditions, 
(Ttt-cr-T'cj xoi /xsTfdvoia, Art. xi.) 

Second. The next class of operations go to 
secure our actual enjoyment of the blessedness 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 453 



promised us and procured for us by Christ. 
These operations take effect when man no 
longer acts in opposition to the knowledge 
which his understanding has received; but 
faithfully complies with it, follows what he 
knows to be right, and allows his will to be 
governed by it; so that his knowledge is no 
longer dead, but living. It is in fact the same 
divine agency which enlightens the understand- 
ing and renews the will. Whatever is done in 
the understanding has the renewal of the will for 
its object, and is for this end effected. This 
divine agency has for its aim the production of 
faith and repentance, the excitement of Chris- 
tian dispositions, and the salutary consequences 
thence resulting ; Rom. v. 5, rtvsv^a ayiov ; xiv. 
17, hix(uo$vvri, sipr^Tq, %apa, sv nvEvpatL ayicp. 
Tit. iii. 4 — 7. The pouring out of the Holy 
Spirit is, in this passage, producing and com- 
municating the Christian temper of which God 
is the author, and by which we become xx^povo- 
fiol s w ?J£ aicovtov. 

This is calling in the stricter sense, [or effec- 
tual calling,] and regeneration (conversio transi- 
tiva) in the theological sense; s. 126. 

When any one feels a firm and lively convic- 
tion of the truths of salvation with which he is 
acquainted, God grants him power to subdue his 
sinful desires, and cheerfully to obey the divine 
precepts. Thus (a) the internal hindrances to 
faith and repentance, by which we are kept from 
the enjoyment of spiritual happiness, are re- 
moved; and ignorance, error, prejudice, and the 
prevailing bias to sense, are weakened. Vide 
Morus, p. 226, n. 1, where the texts of scripture 
are cited, (b) On the contrary, man is led by 
God to entertain better views, is inclined to 
faith and repentance, and is brought into a state 
in which he is ready and able to repent and be- 
lieve. Both of these particulars are comprised 
in the expression of Christ, God draws Qt,xvelv) 
men to believe in him — i. e., he convinces them, 
and renders them disposed to this duty, John, 
vi. 44. Vide Morus, p. 227, Note 2. 

Third. The third class of divine operations 
relates to the preservation of faith, and the con- 
tinuance of the entire happy condition resulting 
from it. Faith is saving only on certain condi- 
tions. These are, its firmness, growth, and in- 
crease, and the shewing of it by good works, 
or Christian virtues. Vide s. 124, IV. This 
class comprehends, therefore, (a) those divine 
operations and institutions which tend to in- 
crease our knowledge of the great truths of sal- 
vation, and perfect our acquaintance' with them. 
The state resulting from these influences is 
commonly called illnminatio regenitorum. (&) 
Those influences by which the Christian is ad- 
vanced in holiness and fitted for the practice of 
Christian virtue, so as to attain a habit of good- 
ness, {renovatio and sanciificatio, in the theolo- 



gical sense; s. 126.) Both of these influences 
are noticed 2 Thess. ii. 17, ©eoj — otrjpC^cu vjxa^ 
iv rtavtii %6ya xal spy 9 ay a ^9. The latter 
is mentioned 1 Thess. v. 23, 0e6j — ayidacu vfid$ 
oXo-tstels. Cf. iii. 13. 

Note. — When the enlightening of the mind 
into the knowledge of the truths of salvation 
and the learning of these truths is spoken of, it 
is only so fir as these truths are practical, and 
stand in connexion with the plan of salvation 
(Art. xi.), and so have an influence on the holi- 
ness or moral improvement of men. These 
illuminating divine influences are not intended 
to convey learned theological science to the 
mind, or to teach the holy scriptures theoreti- 
cally. All this must be done by each individual 
by his natural efforts. The divine influences 
are directed only to moral ends, producing faith 
and repentance, and renewing the heart. It 
is therefore possible for an unregenerate and 
wicked man, who has not therefore experienced 
these renewing influences, to possess a funda- 
mental theoretic knowledge of religion, which 
he may have acquired by his own diligence. 
And if he is a teacher, he may clearly explain 
to others the doctrines of the Bible, and convince 
them, and thus be the means of good. Cf. Phil, 
i. 16 — 18. This good, however, will be very 
much prevented by the fact that hearers give 
much more regard to the example than to the 
doctrines of their teacher, and that what does 
not go from the heart does not commonly reach 
the heart. Again ; these divine influences have 
different degrees, since the capacity for them 
is different in different men. Vide s. 124, III. 

II. The Means which God employs in producing 
these effects. 
The doctrine of the protestant church has 
always been, that God does not act immediately 
on the heart in conversion, or, in other words, 
that he does not produce ideas in the under- 
standing and effects in the will, by his absolute 
divine power, without the employment of exter- 
nal means. This would be such an immediate 
illumination and conversion as fanatics contend 
for, who regard their own imaginations and 
thoughts as effects of the Holy Spirit. Morus, 
p. 231, note. The doctrine of the protestant 
church is, that God exerts these reforming in- 
fluences mediately ,• and that the means which 
he employs with those who have the holy scrip- 
tures, is the divine doctrine taught in them, espe- 
daily the truths of Christianity, in their full ex- 
tent, comprising law and gospel, (precept an& 
promise.) On this subject, cf. s. 123, III. It 
is only through the medium of these truths that 
these effects are produced, and not in a direct 
manner. 

The sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per, are enumerated among the means of grace, 



454 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



and are so called. This is proper, if we remem- 
ber that these sacraments do not exert an in- 
fluence through themselves alone, as external 
rites of religion, but only as connected with the 
word of God, or so far as the truths of the Chris- 
tian religion are connected with them, are sen- 
sibly exhibited and impressively set forth by 
them, and so through their means are personally 
appropriated by men. Everything here comes 
back to the Word of God, or the revealed doc- 
trines of Christianity, which is the medium 
through which God exerts his influence, even 
in the sacraments, 

The fact that God exerts these influences in 
the conversion of men, through the doctrines of 
revelation, is established, 

(1) By such passages of scripture as ex- 
pressly declare that faith, repentance, and holi- 
ness, are excited and produced in the human 
heart by God, through the influence of Christian 
truth; as 2 Pet. i. 3, "The divine power hath 
given us, by means of the Christian doctrine 
(67tfc'yvcotftj), all the means which we need in 
order to live piously and godly." Rom. x. 17, 
18, % riirrtis i% axo7J$; cf. ver. 14. James, i. 18, 
"God has renewed us A6y9 oa^giaj." Con- 
nect with these all the texts in which the Chris- 
tian doctrine is compared with seed sown by 
God, falling upon the human heart, and bear- 
ing fruit, Luke, viii. 11, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 23, 
Grtopu. 1 John, iii. 9, Grtspfia Avtov fiivst Iv 
saircp. 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. iii. 1G; John, 
viii. 31, 32. 

(2) The texts which declare that through this 
divine doctrine Christians are brought to the en- 
joyment of blessedness, and are preserved in it. 
John, xvii. 17, 20 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7tvsv(xa £uo7toi£t, 
1 Tim. iv. 16, "If thou rightly teachest the 
Christian doctrine Gcavtbv g^Ock; xal axovovtd$ 
cov." Ephes. vi. 13 — 17, where it is shewn in 
figures that by the right use of the Christian 
doctrine one may advance far in all Christian 
virtues, and may secure himself against apos- 
tasy. 1 John, v. 4, " By your faith in the Son 
of God you overcome the world." James, i. 
21, the Christian doctrine is called t^vto^ Ao- 
yoj — i. e., the doctrine implanted in Christians, 
in which they are instructed ; as Paul uses 
q>vi?sv£Lv, 1 Cor. iii. 6, seq., adding Bvvdfisvos 
(jwtfou, tyv%ds vuuiv. Morus cites other passages, 
p. 225, s. 1, note 1. 

Note. — It has become common in theological 
schools to denominate the divine doctrine, the 
sum of which is contained in the holy scriptures, 
the Word of God, from a literal translation of 
oiriSs -on, pyj/xa, or Aoyoj &tov, or XpttfTou. This 
term denotes the declarations, oracles, revela- 
tions made in the Bible, and hence the divine 
doctrine, or instruction in general, as Psalms 
cxix., civ., cv., &c. Thus in the New Testa- 



ment the Christian doctrine is denominated 
simply Aoyoj. In later times it has become 
common to call the Bible itself, considered as a 
book, the Word of God, and many have ascribed 
a divine and supernatural power to the Bible a3 
a book. In this way occasion has been given 
to the mistake of ascribing to the book, as such, 
what belongs to the truths or doctrines contained 
in it. This is never done in the holy scriptures 
themselves. There the Word of God is the di- 
vine doctrine itself, with which we are made 
acquainted by this book, but which can be effi- 
cacious without the book, as it was in the first 
ages of Christianity, before the writings com- 
posing the New Testament were written. For 
the power lies not in the book itself, but pro- 
perly in the doctrine which is contained in the 
book. Vide Toellner, Ueber den Unterschied 
der heiligen Schrift und des Wortes Gottes, in 
his " Vermischten Aufsatzen," 2te Samml. s. 
88, f. 

SECTION CXXXI. 

HOW IS THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THESE GRACIOUS 
RENEWING INFLUENCES PROVED FROM THE HOLY 
SCRIPTURES ? AND REMARKS IN EXPLANATION 
OF THE SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY ON THIS 
SUBJECT. 

I. Scriptural Pi-oof of the Divine Origin of the 
Influences of Grace. 

Many texts are frequently cited here which 
do not belong to this subject, but which refer 
only to miraculous gifts, which the apostles and 
some of the first Christians received, and not 
at all to the renewing influences which are im- 
parted to all Christians. Such are 1 Cor. xv. 
10; 2 Cor. iii. 18. Still there are many texts 
which relate directly to this subject, a few only 
of which will be here cited, under two principal 
classes. 

(1) The texts which teach that God, or, what 
is the same thing, the Holy Spirit, works by his 
power in the hearts of Christians, 1 Thess. ii. 
13 ; Ephes. i. 19 ; Rom. viii. 1 — 6. Hence the 
whole renewed and sanctified state of the true 
Christian is denominated rtvzvua and $p6vr>uo. 
rtvsvuatos, as in the passages cited. Vide s. 
123, II. 1, and s. 124, II. Through this influ- 
ence, the flesh or sense (typovqua tfopxos, cap!) 
loses its dominion over reason, and the will is 
renewed; all which results from God, or from 
the Holy Spirit, who dwells and works in the 
hearts of Christians. 

Now in the same way as the influence of God 
or of the Holy Spirit (svipyna, ivtpysi rLvtvfxsx) 
takes place in true Christians, the £ j/ipysta nov 
Xatavd, 6apx6$,x. r. %., works in unbelievers and 
sinners— e. g., Ephes. ii. 2; cf. i. 19, 20. For 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 455 



as Satan is regarded and described as the author 
of evil and wickedness in depraved and unbeliev- 
ing men, so is God the author of goodness and 
virtue in enlightened Christians. So Rom. v. 
5; Ephes. iv. 30, %v7tzlv 7tvsvfxa aytov, to coun- 
teract by sin his salutary influences. 

(2) The texts in which all the specific spiri- 
tual benefits which Christians enjoy are ascribed 
to God, or to the Holy Spirit, as the author, or 
efficient cause. There is not one among all 
these benefits which is not somewhere described 
as produced by divine influence. Thus (a) in- 
struction in Christianity (illuminatio), John, vi. 
45, 65 ; Ephes. i. 17, 18, " God gives us itvi vfta 
aotylas by the Christian doctrine;" 1 Thess. iv. 
9; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 8. (b) Conversion and faith, 
and the entire sum of Christian blessedness 
(xtojoris), Phil. i. 6; Ephes. i. 11 ; ii. 5, 10; iii. 
16; Acts, xvi. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25. (c) The ef- 
fects and consequences of faith ; such as good in- 
tentions, readiness to good works, and skill in 
doing them, Ephes. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. 
ii. 17; Rom. xv. 5. Indeed, the very execution 
of our good purposes is represented as the work 
of the Spirit, 1 Cor. i. 8 ; 1 Pet. v. 10; Rom. 
viii. 13, 14; ix. 1; xiv. 7; Phil. ii. 12, 13, 
" The Christian who is in earnest about his own 
salvation should exhibit all diligence and zeal; 
and yet he should cast himself upon the divine 
guidance and assistance, since he can do nothing 
of himself. For it was God who had awakened 
in the Philippians (when Paul was among them) 
a serious desire for salvation, and who aided in 
the execution of this desire, (although Paul 
was absent from them.) And this he did vrtsp 
cOSoja'ag — i. e., for all this the Philippians were 
indebted to the mere mercy of God, to his free, 
gracious will." 

II. Remarks Explanatory of the Scriptural Phrase- 
ology on this subject. 
(1) There are many passages in the Bible 
which, taken by themselves, appear to affirm an 
immediate influence of God in the renewal of 
men — an influence, therefore, which is miracu- 
lous and irresistible, and involving an exertion 
of his bare omnipotence. And so there are pas- 
sages, where, on the other hand, it seems to be 
taught, that God denies and withholds from men 
the means for their improvement, and renders 
them hard, obdurate, &c. In other passages, 
however, it is expressly said that God employs 
means, and that these are accessible to all men. 
Vide s. 130, II. These influences are described 
in these very passages as resistible. It is dis- 
tinctly taught that man is not to be compelled; 
that he himself must not be inactive about his 
own moral welfare; that he is free to will and 
choose good or evil. Hence good and evil ac- 
tions are ascribed to man himself, and considered 



as imputable to him. We find these two ways 
of representing this subject connected together 
in the same manner in the Old Testament, and 
in other ancient writings — e. g., those of the 
Arabians and Greeks. Cf. the texts cited s. 
85, II. 3. According to these, God puts good 
and evil, wisdom and folly, into the hearts of 
men, and is the author both of their prosperity 
and their overthrow. And yet, according to 
these same writers, the good actions of men are 
rewarded by God, and their wicked actions pu 
nished by him, as their own actions ; whereas if 
they came from God, they would not be imput- 
able to those by whom they were performed. 

(2) Art not these two representations really 
contradictory ? Such they may appear to vs, 
who are accustomed to different distinctions and 
expressions from th ose which were formerly com- 
mon respecting divine influences, the freedom of 
the human will, and its relation to Divine Pro- 
vidence. Those especially who are scientifically 
educated are apt to bring these subjects into a 
philosophical form, and to express them in scho- 
lastic terms. Hence in modern languages we 
have appropriate expressions with regard to free- 
dom, &c, even in common discourse. Such was 
not the case in ancient times. And for this rea- 
son we frequently find difficulties and contradic- 
tions where they saw none. On the one hand, 
the ancient world acknowledged, with us, that 
God governs everything, and that nothing can 
take place without his co-operation ; on the 
other hand, they knew that the human will 
must at the same time remain free, because the 
actions of men would otherwise cease to be their 
own actions. If men were moved like machines, 
and wrought upon like statues, their actions 
could not be imputed to them. But in the an- 
cient world, the means by which God acts were 
not always so carefully distinguished as is com- 
mon at present. And even when these means 
were known, they were more seldom mentioned. 
The sacred writers, indeed, well understood 
them, for they frequently mention them, but not 
in every case distinctly. Thus it happens that 
many things were generally described by the an- 
cients as the immediate effects of divine power, 
which actually took place through the instru- 
mentality of means which were either unknown 
to them, or which they left unmentioned. And 
so, many effects of the divine agency which 
have a miraculous aspect were really produced 
by natural means. To those who are unac- 
quainted with the ancient phraseology, the de- 
scription given of those effects in the ancient 
manner of thinking and speaking seems to im- 
ply that God brought them to pass by an imme- 
diate and irresistible agency. Vide s. 70, Note 
ad fin. 

Now what did Augustine and his follower 



456 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



do ? They took only one class of these texts, 
and interpreted them as they would the lan- 
guage of accurate philosophers, without paying 
any regard to the extreme simplicity of style in 
which the Bible was written. They drew con- 
clusions and general doctrines from these texts, 
which were never drawn by the authors them- 
selves from these premises ; and all this from 
ignorance of the ancient manner of thinking and 
speaking. Vide s. 85. Illiterate persons have 
generally understood this scriptural phraseology 
better than others. 

From these passages, Augustine and his fol- 
lowers deduced the doctrine of the irresistible 
grace of God as something which is miraculous 
in its nature, and which, according to his uncon- 
ditional decree, he bestows upon some men, and 
withholds from others. Without this grace, man 
could not recover himself to holiness, because, 
since the fall, he possesses no freedom of will in 
spiritual things. Man can do nothing which will 
contribute to this end. He is entirely passive 
under these operations of grace. Augustine de- 
pended much on the passage, John, vi. 44, " No 
man can come to me unless the Father draw 
him," (de gratia irresistibili et particulari.) The 
meaning of this passage is, "No man can come 
to me unless the conviction of the great love of 
the Father (in giving me to the world from 
love to it) induces him, under divine guidance 
and co-operation, to come to me, and believe on 
me." 

Even Origen (7tspi ap#wv, iii. 19) noticed both 
these classes of texts, and said that they should 
not be separated, but taken together, that they 
might not contradict one another, and that one 
sense might be deduced from them both. And 
in fact, the two things, the earnest efforts of man 
and the assistance of God, are connected in the 
holy scriptures. Morus therefore observes, very 
justly, p. 225, s. 1, that the following result may 
be deduced from the various texts of scripture 
taken together : — " God leads us, by means of his 
truth, to faith and repentance." Truth is the 
means which God employs for this end. So the 
symbols and the protestant theologians. Vide 
ubi supra, note 5. 

(3) The following ideas, though variously mo- 
dified, are found to have prevailed generally in 
the ancient world — viz., that all life, activity, and 
motion throughout the universe, proceed from 
spirits or invisible beings. And even the extra- 
ordinary and unusual mental excitements, the 
talents, acquisitions, courage, and magnanimity 
which appear among men, were derived from the 
inspiration of higher spirits, and viewed in con- 
nexion with them. They believed, too, very 
generally, in evil spirits, to whose influences 
(under the divine permission) they ascribed the 
wicked purposes, the errors, faults, and calami- 



ties of men. Cf. s. 58, II. With this mode of 
representation the holy scriptures plainly agree 
throughout. Vide the article on the Angels. 
They however take no part in the superstitious 
notions which heathen antiquity, and even the 
great mass of the Jews, connected with this re- 
presentation. From all these they keep aloof. 
But, on the other hand, the Bible is equally far 
from agreeing with that modern mechanical 
philosophy which tends to set aside the influ- 
ence of spiritual beings, and, as far as possible, 
that of God himself. According to the Bible, 
there are good and evil spirits, which in various 
ways operate on the earth and on man. But 
there is especially a divine Spirit (yfajj nn), in 
an eminent sense, which operates in and upon 
true Christians, as it did in the times of the Old 
Testament upon the Israelites. Christians are 
indebted to Christ for this Spirit, whence he is 
called Ttvevua Xptaroi, the Paraclelus, the coun- 
sellor of the pious, whom Christ sends in his 
own stead from the Father, John, xv. 16. As 
soon as any one believes in Christ, this divine 
Spirit begins to influence his heart, and, as it 
were, to dwell with him. And all the good 
which such an one now thinks or does — his 
knowledge, his holiness and happiness — he 
owes solely to him. He it is whom ChrisJ 
truly enlightens in his understanding and guide* 
into all the truth. Nor can he accomplish any- 
thing good without his agency. He does not, 
however, exert his influence upon all in the same 
manner. He renews the heart and all the dis- 
positions of every true Christian (dona spiritus 
sancti ordinaria) ; but upon some in the first 
Christian church he exerted a peculiar agency, 
enduing them with the gifts of teaching, of 
working miracles, &c. (dona extraordinaria.') 
Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 4—11, also s. 39, coll. s. 19, II., 
and s. 9, III., IV. 

To the great bulk of mankind, who are unac- 
customed to the arbitrary and mechanical philo- 
sophy of the schools, and who are unperverted 
by it, this simple and truly animating represen- 
tation, which is everywhere given in the New 
Testament, is more intelligible, clear, and con- 
soling, and has more influence on their heart, 
and is more conducive to their moral improve- 
ment, than all the philosophical and metaphysical 
reasonings on Divine Providence and co-opera- 
tion, how deep soever they may apparently be. 

(4) The uniform doctrine of the holy scrip- 
tures is, therefore, that God effects the moral 
change and renovation of the human heart, not 
immediately, but mediately, and that the means 
which he employs is the Christian doctrine in all 
its extent, its doctrines, precepts, and promises. 
Vide No. 2, ad finem. But the Bible also 
teaches, that the cause of the effect which iff 
produced by this divine doctrine Lies not merely 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 45? 



in the power and weight of the arguments by 
which Christianity is proved, or of the truths 
which it exhibits, but principally in the power 
and agency of God, who, by means of this doc- 
trine, acts in the souls of men. Theologians 
say, ii Divina efficientia a doctrina ipsa, ejusque vi 
et efficacia discemitur ." This clearly appears 
from the passages before cited, especially from 
1 Cor. iii. 6, 7; Phil, ii, 12, 13; 2 Thess. ii. 
15—17; i. 11; Ephes. i. 16—20; iii. 16—20; 
1 Pet. i. 15; Acts, xvi. 14, and many of the 
discourses of Jesus, especially those recorded in 
John — e. g., iii. 13 — 17, &c. 

This now entirely agrees with the promise of 
Christ, (a) that after his departure from the 
earth he would support by his constant and spe- 
cial assistance all those who should believe on 
him, even to the' end of life ; and (b) that the 
Holy Spirit of God should always work among 
them, through the Christian doctrine. This the 
apostles everywhere repeat. And so they de- 
scribe the whole moral renovation and perfection 
of man as the work of God, or of the Holy 
Spirit; Ephes. i. 19; James, i. 5, 18; where, 
however, this work is said to be accomplished 
toy9 dtoj£f«xj, iii. 17, seq. ; Heb. xiii. 20, 21. 

When this doctrine is rightly understood — 
(i. e., in such a way that human freedom, or 
the moral nature of man, is not violated) — 
sound reason cannot object to it. For it affirms 
no new revelations or irresistible influences. 
The manner, however, in which this influence 
is exerted cannot be understood by reason, be- 
cause the subject belongs to the sphere of things 
above sense. This we are taught by Christ 
and the apostles. When Christ (John, iii.) 
had told Nicodemus that the Holy Spirit effects 
a moral regeneration in men, the latter thought 
the doctrine incredible, and was unwilling to 
believe it. Christ replied, (ver. 8,) that it 
would be unreasonable to consent to believe 
only what is directly perceived by the external 
senses, and the whole manner of whose exist- 
ence and operation we could see, as it were, 
with our own eyes. He illustrates this by a 
comparison with the wind, which we cannot 
see and follow with our eyes, but of whose ac- 
tual existence we may be convinced by its ef- 
fects ; as, for example, by the sound which it 
makes. And such is the fact here. And there 
are a number of important passages of the same 
import, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
chap. i. — iii., and especially ii. 14. Cf. Morus, 
p. 237. Here ^v%ixb$ av^ptojtos is not the natu- 
ral man, for which fyv6i%6$ would be the word ; 
but the carnal man — i. e., (where objects of 
knowledge are spoken of,) one who will ac- 
knowledge and receive in religious matters no 
higher divine instruction and guidance, who 
will believe nothing but what he perceives by 
58 



his external senses, (aapxcxos,) one who has no 
perception of the truths revealed by the Holy 
Spirit, (ta ifov rtvevfiatos ayuov.) No wonder, 
therefore, that he does not yield his assent to 
these truths, and that they even appear foolish- 
ness (jitcopux) to him. For such doctrines require 
to be differently discerned from those which are 
merely of human discovery; they must be dis- 
cerned 7tv8v/xatLxu)i. We reject human doc- 
trines, or renounce them, when they do not in- 
struct or satisfy us. But since God cannot err, 
the truths which he has revealed, and which we 
know from our own convictions to be such, 
may not be judged of by us in the same man- 
ner. We are not at liberty to oppose or re- 
nounce them because they may chance to be 
displeasing to us, or because they may be hard 
and unintelligible. 

(5) But the scriptural views of the agency of 
God in producing the moral renovation of man, 
when carefully examined, are by no means in- 
consistent with the philosophy of the day. 
They agree in all essential points with the doc- 
trine which is confirmed by experience and 
reason, respecting the providence and agency 
of God. For («) all ability and power which 
man possesses for perceiving the truth, and for 
choosing either good or evil, is derived solely 
from God. (b) But God must also concur by 
his agency in the use and exercise of these 
powers, and preserve them to us in the moment 
of action. Vide s. 69. (c) We owe it to God, 
too, that we have opportunities to exert our fa- 
culties, and objects about which we may em- 
ploy them. Through the divine ordering and 
government, we have teachers, and all the other 
internal and externa] assistances for acquiring 
knowledge of the truth, and for making progress 
in goodness. If we are deprived of these aids, 
we are not in a case either to understand the 
truth, to practise virtue, or to do anything great 
and useful. Vide s. 70. Everything from 
without which contributes to our moral good is 
ordered by Divine Providence and is employed 
by God for the promotion of his designs; so 
that to him alone are we indebted not only for 
all temporal, but also for all spiritual good ; 
although by all this our freedom of will is not 
in the least impaired. Vide s. 70, 1. But being 
unable to fathom or comprehend the manner of 
the divine government, we cannot presume to 
determine positively how God can or must con- 
trol us, and in what way he may, or may not, 
exert an agency in promoting our moral improve- 
ment. On this subject we must confine our- 
selves wholly to experience, and especially to 
the instructions of the holy scriptures, if we 
make them the ground of our knowledge. Nor 
must we renounce this doctrine because we can- 
not understand the internal modus of it. 
2Q 



453 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION CXXXII. 

A SKETCH OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL THEORIES 
RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE, AND 
THE FREEDOM (OR ABILITY) OF MAN IN SPI- 
RITUAL THINGS ; AND THE CONTROVERSIES ON 
THIS SUBJECT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

I. Opinions of the early Greek Fathers. 

In the earliest ages, shortly after the time of 
the apostles, there was no controversy on this 
subject, as Augustine himself acknowledges. 
In the exhibition of this doctrine most of the 
first teachers contented themselves with that 
simplicity which prevails in the New Testa- 
ment. They so express themselves, that while 
they affirm, on one side, that man receives as- 
sistance (auxilia) from divine grace, they still 
allow to him, on the other side, freedom of ac- 
tion. Nothing was said from the first to the 
third century about irresistible grace. Vide s. 
79, in the History of the Doctrine of Original 
Sin. So Irenaeus says in many passages, " that 
God compels no man ; that we are free, and can 
choose good or evil." Clement of Alexandria 
says, "that God indeed guides, but never binds 
our free wills ; and that hence to believe and to 
obey is in man's power." In the third century, 
Origen expressed his opinion still more defi- 
nitely than the fathers who had preceded him. 
In his work 7ispi ap#u>i>, (1. iii. c. I.) he says, 
we are indebted for faith to God alone. He 
gave us the means of faith. From him come 
both the faculties which man has of doing right, 
and the preservation of these faculties. But 
the use of these faculties bestowed upon us de- 
pends upon ourselves. When therefore in some 
passages of the New Testament the improvement 
of man is ascribed solely to God, and in others 
to man himself, there is no contradiction. For 
even that which depends upon our own free will 
cannot take place without the divine assistance ; 
and God does not work in us without our own 
co-operation. For he does not bind the free 
human will. With these sentiments, Athana- 
sius, Basilius the Great, Chrysostom, and other 
fathers of the Greek church, perfectly agree. 

[Note. — The early Greek fathers were led to 
insist thus strongly upon ai>tetov<siov, e%ev$spiav, 
Tipoalpsaw, {the, self -determination, freedom of the 
will,) by standing in immediate conflict with 
the views of man prevailing throughout the hea- 
then world, and especially among the contem- 
porary Gnostic sects. Before Christianity was 
promulgated, it had become almost universal to 
regard man as acting under the same necessity 
to which material nature is subjected. Evil 
was supposed either to belong to matter, and to 
be inherent in the human organization, or to re- 
sult from an irresistible fate and necessity. 
Thus the free and accountable agency of man 



was theoretically obscured, and practically also, 
as far as the image of God, which is never 
wholly effaced, can be obscured by theoretic 
error and moral corruption. 

The publication of Christianity cast new light 
upon the condition and relations of man. While, 
by revealing a remedy, it implied his helpless- 
ness and need, on the other hand, by offering 
pardon, it implied his guilt and exposure to pu- 
nishment, and by appealing to the divine por- 
tion in man it awakened him from his apathy 
as to moral obligation and effort. The whole 
nature of the Christian remedy, consisting not 
of magical or physical influences — which would 
have been requisite had man been under a na- 
tural necessity of sinning — but of moral means, 
calling our moral faculties into exercise, con- 
tained an implied contradiction to the pagan and 
Manichean philosophy, and struck at the root 
of every view which derives evil from a neces- 
sity of nature rather than from the perverted use 
of our moral powers. 

From these considerations it may be explain- 
ed that the early Greek fathers should have in- 
sisted so disproportionately upon the freedom 
of the human will, though they by no means 
went into the Pelagian excess of ascribing to it 
an independency on divine grace. Had thej 
been placed in as immediate contact with the 
stoical or pharisaical doctrine of human self-suf- 
ficiency, as with the Pagan and Gnostic idea of 
natural necessity, they would, doubtless, have 
given to man's inability and dependence on 
God that place which human freedom and power 
now hold in their system. 

As it was, the excess to which the Greek 
fathers carried this point laid the foundation foi 
the divergency between the Eastern and West- 
ern churches, which will appear in the sequel 
of this sketch. 

With regard to the anthropological views of 
the Greek fathers of this period, cf. Neander, 
Kirchengeschichte, b. i., Abth. iii. s. 1049 — 
1060.— Tr.] 

II. Opinions of the early Latin Fathers ; and the 
Doctrine of Pelagius. 
We find that most of the ancient Latin fa- 
thers agreed with this simple doctrine ^of the 
Greek church. So Hilary, of the fourth cen- 
tury ; nor were any objections made to him be- 
fore the time of Augustine, near the beginning 
of the fifth century. We find, however, in 
Africa, even before the time of Augustine, some 
traces of the peculiar expressions and senti- 
ments which were afterwards formed by him 
into a system, which he held in opposition to 
that of Pelagius. Tertullian, who in the rest 
of his system does not differ from the Greeks, 
opposes gratiam divinam to natura, and says 
that the vis gratiae is poientior natura, (the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 459 



natural powers of men,) De Anima, c. 21. He, 
however, allows to man liberi arbitrii potestatem. 
Cyprian, in the third century, comes still nearer 
to the opinions of Augustine. And indeed 
there must have been many in Africa before 
and at the time of Augustine who held the es- 
sentials of his system. 

This induced Pelagius, (who w r as a native of 
Britain, but who was extensively read in the 
works of the Greek fathers,) in the beginning 
of the fifth century, to analyze and collate the 
doctrines of the Greek fathers, and especially 
of Origen, and to draw consequences from them 
which they themselves had not authorized. He 
taught that three things should be distinguished 
in man, the posse, veUe, and agere. For the 
faculty or power to do good men are indebted 
to God alone (gratise), who had granted it to 
human nature. To will and to act depends upon 
man himself. Still men are so assisted by the 
grace of God that their willing and acting is 
facilitated. But the means which God makes 
use of in affording his aid are doctrina and reve- 
latio. He made this last point more prominent 
than any of the teachers who had preceded 
him ; and this was well. But in other points 
he deviated from the doctrine of the Bible — 
viz., (a) by denying natural depravity ,• (b) by 
deriving our ability to do good solely or princi- 
pally from the power with which our nature 
was originally endowed by God ; (c) and by 
allowing to God no real instrumentality in the 
conversion and sanctification of men. Accord- 
ing to this system, God works only by means 
of the Christian doctrine — i. e., he is the author 
of this doctrine, which contains more powerful 
motives than any other. 

Against this system Augustine contended. In 
Africa, councils were held in opposition to Pe- 
lagius, in which his doctrine was condemned. 
The Christians of the Eastern church, of Pales- 
tine and elsewhere, did not, however, assent to 
this decision; and the same is true of many in 
the Latin churches beyond the bounds of Africa, 
and at first even of the Roman bishop himself. 
This was owing, partly to the extravagant zeal 
of Augustine, and to the mixture of many erro- 
neous opinions in his system ; and partly to the 
guarded and ambiguous phraseology of Pela- 
gius, by which he concealed his departures 
from the scriptural doctrine. But at length 
Augustine succeeded so far in his efforts, that 
the doctrine of Pelagius was condemned, and 
the condemnation confirmed by the Emperor. 
And thus the theory of Augustine obtained the 
predominance, at least in the West. 

III. Augustine's Doctrine respecting Grace. 
(1) He held that human nature is so de- 
praved (s. 79) that it no longer possesses free- 
dom of will in spiritual things {carere libera 



arbitrio in spiritualibus) — i. e., is nnable to un- 
derstand spiritual things, (the truths of salva- 
tion contained in the scriptures,) or to act con- 
formably with them, without the divine instruc- 
tions contained in the scriptures, and the gracious 
assistance of God, although he may possess free- 
dom in natural things {liberum arbitrium habere 
in naturalibus) — i. e., he may learn God from 
nature and reason, and fulfil many of his duties. 
The Bible, too, teaches that the wicked come 
at length to such a habit of sinning that they 
become the slaves of sin, (John, viii. 32, 36 ; 
Rom. vii. 23,) and that they can be delivered 
from this slavery only by faith in Jesus Christ 
and by divine assistance. Since now Augus- 
tine was led, by opposition to Pelagius, to ex- 
aggerate the doctrine of natural depravity, (vide 
s. 79, 80,) he represented the assistance afford- 
ed by God in the improvement of man as truly 
compulsory, and of such a nature as to infringe 
upon human freedom. The ancient fathers, on 
the other hand, held to to avts^ovaiov, under- 
standing by this term, or the term liberum arbi- 
trium, (which Tertullian first borrowed from a 
term in Roman law,) the power of man to 
choose good or evil freely and without compul- 
sion. This view was universally held in the 
East, and in the West, too, before the Pelagian 
controversies. 

(2) Augustine made a careful distinction be- 
tween nature and grace. Vide s. 129, II., and 
Morus, p. 234, note 2. Grace alone can renew 
man ; he can do nothing for this end by the 
powers of mere nature. And it is true, in a cer- 
tain sense, according to the Bible, that man 
alone cannot deliver himself,- that by his own un- 
aided powers he cannot renew himself. But Au- 
gustine went further than this, and the additions 
which he made are not scriptural. Man, he 
said, can do nothing which will at all contribute 
to his spiritual recovery. He is like a lump 
of clay, or a statue, without life or activity. 
Hence, he denied virtue and salvation to the 
heathen, and to all who are not enlightened by 
grace. Vide s. 121. 

(3) This divine grace, which alone is ab'„ to 
renew the heart, is described by Augustine as 
efficax and sufficiens — i. e., alone sufficient to 
overcome the power of sin, (in which Augus- 
tine was right.) and also as irresistibilis. For 
he conceived grace to be the direct operation of 
divine omnipotence, acting in a miraculous 
manner, qua voluntatem hominum indcclinabili 
vi ad bona trahat. 

(4) Augustine made a threefold division of 
grace, founded on the doctrine which he held in 
opposition to Pelagius, that to will, to be able, 
and to perform, depend solely on divine grace — 
viz., (a) gratia excitans or incipiens, that grace 
which renders the human will inclined to faith, 
excites good emotions, and produces the begin- 



460 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



nings of faith. Other names given to this in- 
cipient grace are, prasveniens, pulsans, trahens, 
vocans, prasparans. (b) Operans or efficiens, that 
grace which imparts faith and new spiritual 
powers for the performance of duty. God pro- 
duces good desires and determinations in man 
by the truths of the Christian religion, (c) Co- 
operans, perficiens, or assistant, that by which 
the believer is assisted after his conversion, so 
that he will be able to perform good works, and 
to persevere in faith. 

Augustine differed from all the theologians 
who had preceded him, in teaching that grace 
anticipated the human will, (praevenire volunta- 
iem.) This maybe understood in a very just 
and scriptural sense. But Augustine meant by 
it nothing less than that the first good desires 
and determinations to amend are miraculously 
produced, or infused into the heart by divine 
grace ; whereas the earlier theologians had uni- 
formly taught that God gives man, in the use 
of means, opportunity to repent, and that he 
guides and assists in this work by his own 
agency; but that man himself must be active, 
and must form the resolution to repent, and 
have a disposition to do so ; in which case di- 
vine mercy will come to his relief, (quod volun- 
tas hominum prsevcniat auxilia gratiae.) To this 
view, however, Augustine could not consent, 
because he denied all power to the human will. 
In this work, man, in his view, is entirely pas- 
sive. But many of his followers in the West 
differed from him in this particular, and adhered 
to the more ancient representation. Afterwards 
they were frequently numbered with the Semi- 
Pelagians, and in the sixth century their doc- 
trine was condemned. 

(5) With respect to the manner in which 
saving grace operates, Augustine believed that 
in the case of those who enjoy revelation, grace 
commonly acts by means of the word, or the 
divine doctrine, but sometimes directly, because 
God is not confined to the use of means. On 
this point there was great logomachy. Real 
conversions, even in such extraordinary cases 
as that of Paul, are effected by the word of God, 
and the believing reception of it; although the 
circumstances under which the word is brought 
home to the heart may be extraordinary. 

(6) Augustine connected all these doctrines 
with his theory respecting the unconditional de- 
cree of God; respecting which vide s. 32. He 
taught that the anticipating and efficient grace 
of God depend not at all upon man and his 
worthiness, (susceptibility,) but solely on the 
decree of God. God, according to his own will, 
elected some, from all eternity, from the whole 
mass of mankind, in order to make them vessels 
of mercy, (susceptible of his grace ;) while from 
others he withholds this renovating grace, that 
they may be vessels of wrath. He imparts, in- 



deed, to all the anticipating grace ; but efficient 
grace only to a few — viz., the elect. Of this 
procedure none can complain; for God is not 
bound to bestow his grace upon any. Thus the 
efficacy {efficacid) of grace on the heart is made 
by him to depend on the unconditional decree 
of God, (ah electione Dei,) and also the opposi- 
tion (resistentia) of men : the latter on the de- 
cretum reprobationis. For God does not will to 
exert the whole power of his grace upon the 
heart of those who prove reprobate. Why he 
does not we are unable to determine; this is 
one of the unfathomable mysteries of the divine 
decrees. Such doctrines as these are distinctly 
expressed in many of the writings of Augus- 
tine, — as in his work, Be predestinatione Sanc- 
torum. He is not, however, at all times con- 
sistent with himself; and feeling how hard his 
doctrine is, sometimes expresses himself less se- 
verely. [For a more complete view of the sys- 
tem of Augustine, cf. the Jan. No. of Bib. Repo- 
sitory, for 1833, Art. Augustine and Pelagius.] 

IV. Controversies on Particular Points in the 
Augustinian System. 

The system of Augustine respecting grace 
was, taken as a whole, made fundamental in 
the Western church in the ages succeeding his. 
Some adopted it entire, others only in part; 
most, however, dissented from it in some parti- 
culars, and lowered it down, so to speak. They 
retained many of his terms, but employed them 
in a more just and scriptural sense. Others, on 
the contrary, adopted the system of Pelagius, or 
endeavoured to compose a new system by com- 
bining his opinions with those of Augustine. 
The principal points on which a difference of 
opinion existed in the Latin church were the 
following — viz., 

(1) The doctrine of predestination. Although. 
Augustine believed in unconditional decrees, 
this doctrine never became universal in the 
Latin church. Most of the members of this 
church, until the ninth century, held only to 
those passages in his works in which he ex- 
pressed himself with less rigour. But in the 
ninth century, when Gottschalk began to advo- 
cate unconditional decrees strenuously, a vehe- 
ment controversy arose. Vide s. 32, note. His 
principal opponents were Rabanus Maurus, 
Hinkmar, and others, who justly derived pre- 
destination from God's foreknowledge of the 
free actions of men. In this opinion they had 
many followers, though a large number still 
adopted the theory of Augustine, after mode- 
rating and modifying it in various ways. To 
this party Peter of Lombardy and other school- 
men belonged. Luther and Melancthon (as 
well as Calvin and Beza) were at first strong 
Augustinians; but they afterwards abandoned 
his doctrine of predestination, while Calvin and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 461 



Btza still adhered to it, and made it a doctrine 
of their church. Vide the sections above cited. 
Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centu- 
ries the most violent controversies on this sub- 
ject raged in the Romish church, between the 
Jansenists, who were zealous Augustinians, 
and the Jesuits in the Netherlands and France. 
The latter agreed very nearly in sentiment with 
Rabanus, and had many supporters. 

(2) The doctrine of the freedom of the human 
will and its relation to the operations of grace. 
On this subject there are three principal systems. 

First. The Jlugustinian, which allows to 
man no freedom of will in spiritual things, ac- 
cording to the statement above made ; No. iii. 
The strenuous adherents of Augustine above 
named entirely agreed with him in this particu- 
lar; and the doctrine of the entire inability of 
man in spiritual things, in the sense of Augus- 
tine, was zealously advocated by the Domini- 
cans, who in this followed Thomas Aquinas. 
Out of this arose the violent controversy which 
prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies, de auxiliis gratiae, between the Domini- 
cans and Netherland theologians on the one 
side, and the Jesuits and their adherents on the 
other, and afterwards, in the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, between the Jesuits and 
Jansenists. Luther, with Carlstadt and some 
o-;hers of his coadjutors, belonged at first to this 
high party. The former defended this doctrine 
in his book, De servo arbitrio, against Erasmus. 
Afterwards, however, his views became very 
much more moderate, and he retained but little 
more of the doctrine of Augustine than the 
terms in which it was expressed. He was fol- 
lowed by a large number of the theologians of 
his church. 

Secondly. The scholastic system. Most of the 
schoolmen endeavoured to moderate the theory 
of Augustine. They taught that grace is indeed 
powerful and efficacious, but that man is not 
compelled by it, and can resist it. The assent 
of the human will must accompany grace, with- 
out which it is inefficacious. They allowed, 
therefore, the freedom of the will in a certain 
sense. They held that the will of man can 
either follow or resist grace; while still they 
admitted that grace has a certain influence in 
the renovation of man, not indeed miraculous, 
but yet acting physically in connexion with the 
divine word. They were followed afterwards 
in the Romish church by the great body of the 
Jesuits, who on this account were involved in 
much controversy with the Dominicans, Jansen- 
ists, and others, who were strict Augustinians, 
and by >vhom they were accused of inclining 
to Pelagianism. At the time of the Reforma- 
tion, in the sixteenth century, this theory 
prevailed fir and wide in the Romish church, 
and was defended by Eck and Erasmus against 



Luther. It was adopted by Melancthon, and 
expressly avowed by him after the death of Lu- 
ther, and by the theologians of his school in the 
sixteenth century. Others, however, would not 
swerve from the earlier system of Luther, 
though the difference which now existed be- 
tween the two parties was more in words than 
in reality. This doctrine was called by the lat- 
ter synergism, and its advocates synergists, be- 
cause they taught that the operations of grace 
are accompanied by the action of the human 
will. The principal advocate of this synergism 
was Victorin Strigel, and its principal oppo- 
nent Flacius. Since that period the opinions on 
both sides have assumed a much more mode- 
rate shape, and a great deal of logomachy has 
ceased ; but there still remains a difference of 
opinion on this point in the protestant as well 
as in the catholic church. 

Thirdly. The system of Pelagius. Many think 
that this system is better than any other to re- 
move the contradiction between human freedom 
and the influences of grace. Pelagius entirely 
denies any physical influence of grace, and any 
alteration of the will effected by. means of it. 
God, indeed, operates on men, but merely 
through the (natural) power of the truths of re- 
ligion, of which he is the author. Man has 
ability both to understand these truths and live 
according to them, and also ability to sin. And 
this is the freedom of will essential to man. 
God causes the renovation of the heart, but 
merely through the influence of Christian doc- 
trine, inasmuch as this doctrine, of which God 
is the author, contains more powerful motives 
to improvement than any human systems. Vide 
the Estimate, No. ii. ad fin. Many modern 
theologians have received this system entirely, 
and some have undertaken to interpret the com- 
mon ecclesiastical formulas and the Augusti- 
nian phraseology in conformity with it. Re- 
specting these controversies and systems vide 
the works of Vossius, Sirmond, Mauguin, 
Serry, Norisius ; also the works of Semler, 
Walch (Ketzergeschichte), Rosier (Bibliothek 
der Kirchenvater), and others. [Cf. Neander, 
Kirohengesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. Bretschneider, b. 
ii. s. 606.— Tr.] 

V. Later History of this Doctrine. 

Since the seventeenth, and especially since 
the eighteenth century, many theologians of the 
protestant church have laboured to cast light on 
the doctrine of the operations of grace and the 
efficacy of the divine word, and to exhibit this 
doctrine in a manner correspondent with the 
principles of modern philosophy. Some have 
declared themselves decidedly in favour of the 
Pelagian system. Others have adopted it only 
in part, or, while they have held it, have dis- 
guised their belief by using the terms of the 
2 q2 



463 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Augustinian or scholastic theory in an entirely 
different sense from what belongs to them, in 
reality denying physical influence. In this 
point, however, the protestant church is agreed, 
that the Holy Spirit does not act immediately, 
but mediately, through the word, s. 130, II. 
So clearly do the symbols teach. Morus, p. 
231, n. 1. Still there is a great diversity of 
opinion on the question about the manner in 
which the Holy Spirit acts through the word, 
and on the question whether these operations 
may be denominated supernatural, and in what 
sense. On these points there are two principal 
theories prevalent in the protestant church. 

(1) Many hold that although grace operates 
through the word, there is still connected with 
the word a special power of the Holy Spirit, in 
enlightening and converting men. This power, 
however, is never exerted without, but always 
in connexion with the word. Conjunctum cum 
usu doclrinas auxilium Dei, quod ille fert utenti- 
bus ea, Morus, p. 228, note. The greater part, 
though not all of the early protestant and Lu- 
theran theologians, were of this opinion. So 
Melancthon. Some gave such a turn to this 
doctrine that they were suspected of fanaticism. 
This was the case with Herm. Rathmann, a 
Lutheran preacher in Dantzig, who affirmed in 
his work, u Gnadenreich Christi," 1621, that man 
is so depraved that the Word of God can by 
itself exert no power on his heart, unless the 
almighty power of the Holy Spirit is connected 
with it. Upon this a great controversy arose 
in the seventeenth century. Some, too, of the 
party of the pietists, in the eighteenth century, 
expressed themselves so vaguely on this point 
that they were suspected of fanaticism. But, 
in fact, neither their opinions, nor that of Rath- 
mann, can properly be called fanatical. Fana- 
tics and enthusiasts believe in an illumination 
and renovation of man effected immediately by 
God, without the use of the word, or the truths 
of the holy scriptures, of which consequently 
they speak with disregard. So, e. g., the 
Quakers. Vide Morus, p. 231, s. 5, for a brief 
view of their system. 

Many modern theologians have entirely de- 
parted from these views, (vide No. 2 ;) while, 
on the other hand, many have adhered to the 
more ancient theory, and defended it against all 
attacks. E. g., C. A. Bertling, Vorstellnng 
was die Lutherische Kirche von der Kraft der 
heiligen Schrift lehre ; Dantzig, 1756, 4to. The 
author of the "Freundschaftliche Unterredun- 
gen iiber die Wirkungen der Gnade," 2te Ausg. 
4 thl.; Halle, 1774, 8vo. Also the « Briefe 
uber die Wirkungen der Gnade," by the same 
author, which is the best work in favour of this 
theory. Gottl. Christ. Storr, "De Spiritus 
Sancti in mentibus nostris efficientia, et de mo- 
menta ejus doctrinae;" Tubingen, 1777, 4to. 



Cf. Gehe, Diss, inaug. de argumento quod pro 
divinitate religionis Christian® ab experientia 
ducitur; Gottingen, 1796. 

This theory, however little it may accord 
with the prevailing principles of modern philo- 
sophy, is strongly supported by many passages 
of scripture, s. 130, s. 131, II. 4. 

(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that the 
divine and supernatural (though they do not 
like to make use of this word) power of the 
word of God, by which man is converted, is not 
to be looked for in connexion with the word, 
but as belonging to the word itself. They thus 
consider the power by which man is renewed 
and made holy, to be in no sense a physical, 
but rather a logico-moral power. This opinion, 
which is fundamentally Pelagian, was ingeni- 
ously defended in the seventeenth century by 
Claud Pajon, a reformed theologian of Orleans ; 
it led, however, to much controversy. This 
opinion was first fully exhibited in the Lutheran 
church, after the eighteenth century, by Joh. 
Ernest. Schubert, in his " TTnterricht von der 
Kraft der heiligen Schrift;" Helmstadt, 1753, 
4to. It was against this work that Bertling 
wrote. Cf. No. I. It was afterwards defended 
by Spalding, " Ueber d.en Werth der Gefiihle 
in Christenthum," and by Eberhard, " Apologie 
des Sokrates," thl. i., iii. The most copious 
and learned work on this subject is, Junkheim, 
"Von dem Uebernaturlichen in den Gnadeu- 
wirkungen;" Erlangen, 1775, 8vo. This the- 
ory has been adopted by most modern theolo- 
gians of the protestant church, and essentially 
even by Morus. They frequently employ, in- 
deed, the ancient phraseology and formulas, 
but in a different sense from that in which they 
were originally used — a sense which is consi- 
dered by them more rational, i. e., more con- 
formed to the philosophical system adopted by 
these modern theologians. We shall now give 
a brief historical account and illustration of this 
theory, which at present is the most popular and 
current among protestant theologians, adding, 
however, a critique as we pass along. 

SECTION CXXXIII. 

EXHIBITION OF THE MODERN THEORY RESPECTING 
THE DIVINITY OF THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE, 
AND THE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD.* 

I. How does God act in promoting the Moral Im- 
provement and Perfection of Men? and in ivhat 
consists the Divinity of the Operations of Grace ? 

(1) God does not act in such a way as to 



* How far I assent to this theory, either on scrip- 
tural or other grounds, will appear from the previous 
sections. Where I agree with it entirely, I shall 
state it as my opinion ; wherever it appears to me 
erroneous — i. e. not demonstrable from the Bible — 
I shall give it as the opinion of others. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 463 



infringe upon the free will of man, or to inter- 
fere with the use of his powers. Vide Phil. ii. 
12, 13. Consequently, God does not act on 
man immediately, producing ideas in their souls 
without the preaching or reading of the scrip- 
tures, or influencing their will in any other way 
than by the understanding. Did God operate 
in any other way than through the understand- 
ing, he would operate miraculously and irresisti- 
bly. And the practice of virtue under such an 
influence would have no internal worth ; it 
would be compelled, and consequently incapa- 
ble of reward. But experience teaches that the 
work of reformation and holiness is not effected 
violently and at once, but by degrees ; which 
could not be the case if God acted irresistibly 
and miraculously. Experience teaches, too, 
that man can resist; and so the Bible says ex- 
pressly, Matt, xxiii. 37; Heb. iii. 8, seq. ; John, 
vii. 17; Acts, vii. 51. We find, also, that the 
moral reformation of man cannot take place with- 
out earnest and zealous effort, (the working out 
of salvation with fear and trembling, Phil, ii.,) 
or the vigorous exercise of one's own powers; 
and that man must be anything rather than pas- 
sive and inactive in this matter. The Bible 
teaches the same thing, and so requires of men 
that they should reform, change their heart, 
Acts, ii. 38; viii. 22. It exhorts them to in- 
crease in knowledge and virtue, Ephes. ii. 10; 
Tit. ii. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2, seq. And for what 
purpose has God given to man the direct reve- 
lation of his will, if it is not to be used and 
employed by God himself in promoting the sal- 
vation of men 1 Hence all genuine protestant 
theologians, on whatever other points they may 
differ, are agreed in this. 

(2) The divinity in the operations of grace 
consists, 

(a) In the doctrine revealed by God. For by 
means of this, faith is excited and preserved in 
men. This doctrine could not have been dis- 
covered by man without a divine revelation; 
and God is the author of all the effects which 
result from it. In the same way we properly 
ascribe to a discourse, or to a great writer, all 
the beneficial effects which may result from his 
discovery or writings, and regard him as the 
author of these effects. All this is true; but 
this is not all which the Bible teaches on this 
subject. The Bible teaches that besides this 
there is an agency of God connected with divine 
truth and accompanying it; or that there is con- 
nected with the divine word an operation of 
God on the hearts of men, having for its end 
their improvement and holiness. Vide s. 131, 
II. 4. 

(b) In the wise and beneficent external institu- 
tions which God has established, by which man 
is led to the knowledge of the truth, and his 
heart is prepared and inclined to receive it. 



Who can fail to recognise the divine hand in 
these external circumstances, by which so pow- 
erful an influence is exerted upon us ; and which 
are often entirely beyond our own control ? 
How much does the moral culture and improve- 
ment of man depend on birth, parentage, early 
instruction, education, society, example, na- 
tural powers, adversity, or prosperity ! Vide s. 
131, II. 4. These circumstances are frequently 
mentioned in the Bible, Rom. ii. 4, seq. Hence it 
follows that God has made wise arrangements for 
the good of man, which may properly be called 
grace, inasmuch as they are proofs of his unde- 
served goodness. It follows also that God 
withholds his assistance from none, and that 
the work of moral renovation is effected in a 
manner entirely adapted to our moral nature, 
not forcibly, irresistibly, instantaneously, but 
gradually. Vide s. 126, seq. 

Now, so far as the end which God has in 
view, in wisely ordering these circumstances 
and appointing these means, is attained — i. e., 
when man does not himself resist their influ- 
ence, this grace may be called efficacious. Still 
it is exerted in such a way that no one is com- 
pelled. Grace never acts irresistibly. The re- 
newal of man is effected by God through the 
Christian doctrine, the influence of which can 
be resisted, because it acts on the will through 
the understanding; and the will is not necessa- 
rily determined, but only rendered disposed to 
determine itself for a particular object. In the 
physical world the law of sufficient reason and 
of necessity prevails ; in the moral world, the 
law of freedom. God, therefore, who himself 
has given this law 7 , will not act in contradiction 
to it. Frequently, however, one cannot prevent 
the good impressions and emotions which arise 
on hearing or reading the truths of the Chris- 
tian religion ; just as he is unable to prevent the 
sensations or ideas which external objects pro- 
duce in his mind, through the senses. This 
observation, which is founded on the nature 
of the human soul, gave rise to the position 
which was taken in the controversies between 
the Jansenists and Jesuits; gratiam non esse 
irresistibilem, sed inevitabilem. For although 
man cannot prevent in every case good impres- 
sions and emotions, he is able to prevent the 
consequences of them in actual reformation. 

II. In what manner does God operate, on the heart 

of man through the Word, in promoting his Moral 

Improvement ? 

On this point theologians are divided. 

(1) The natural power of truth acts first on 
the human understanding. The Christian doc- 
trine makes us acquainted with God, with his 
feelings towards us, and with what tie requires 
of us. It delivers us from ii tee and preju- 

dice. For all this we are ind sbted to God. GocJ 



464 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



gave us these instructions that they might have 
an effect upon us — i. e., that they might act 
powerfully on the will, and excite in us good feel- 
ings and resolutions. Thus the consideration of 
the divine promises revealed in Christianity 
tends to lead our minds to repose confidence in 
God. The consideration, too, of these promises, 
and the examination of our conduct by the di- 
vine precepts, produces sorrow and repentance. 
These precepts and promises, which the Chris- 
tian religion makes known, are adapted to pro- 
duce zeal for virtue or holiness. At first our 
powers for goodness are weak ; but by exercise 
they increase in strength and become confirmed. 
Vide Art. xi. All this takes place according to 
the natural laws of the human mind ; but the 
effect produced does not cease on this account to 
be the work of God. 

(2) But the New Testament always ascribes 
to the Christian religion a greater power and 
efficacy in rendering men virtuous and happy 
than to any truth ever discovered or taught by 
man, or supported merely by arguments of hu- 
man wisdom. Thus Paul says, Romans, i. 16, 
svayyi'kiov "Xpttitov is 8wa,i«s ©sou els cKOT^piav 
Ttwvti ^9 7tL<rf£vovT?i. In 1 Cor. i. and ii. he 
shews that the gospel had produced greater ef- 
fects than any human system ever did or could 
produce, although exhibited in the most eloquent, 
forcible, and convincing manner. Cf. John, 
vi. 63, and John, iii. Experience and history 
confirm this. Philosophers and moralists, who 
depend upon the internal strength and validity 
of their systems derived from human wisdom, 
have never been able to accomplish such great 
and wonderful results as the Christian religion 
has produced, although exhibited without elo- 
quence or human wisdom. What merely human 
teacher of morals could ever boast of so great 
and remarkable an effect from his instructions as 
we read of in Acts, ii. 37, and viii. 27 — 38 1 And 
whence is all this 1 Some have thought it to be 
owing to the divine authority on which the Chris- 
tian doctrine is published. This authority, they 
say, exerts more influence on one who acknow- 
ledges it, and removes doubts and difficulties more 
easily, than the most convincing arguments and 
the most eloquent address, which depend on no- 
thing more than mere human authority. But 
why have not other religions, which have also 
been published on divine authority, produced 
these same effects % This divine authority can- 
not therefore be the only ground of the difference. 
With this must be connected the internal excel- 
lence of the religion itself, and the salutary na- 
ture of its doctrines. These two taken together 
constitute the whole cause, so far at least as it is 
externally visible, of the facts under considera- 
tion. But even these do not satisfactorily ac- 
count for all the effects produced by the C hristian 
doctrine; they are not assigned by the holy scrip- 



tures as the principal cause from which these 
effects are explicable. The scriptures teach 
that the cause of these great effects does not lift 
merely in the power and weight of the doctrines 
of Christianity, and the evidence by which they 
are supported, but principally in the almighty 
power and influence of God, who through the 
Christian doctrine works in the souls of men. 
Vide s. 131, II. 4. This efficacy of the divine 
doctrine is called in theology, the power {vis, 
efficacia) of the divine word. 

(3) Inferences drawn from the preceding state- 
ment. 

(a) The power of the word of God, or the 
agency of the Holy Spirit, is not physical but 
logico-moral — i. e., the Holy Spirit acts upon the 
human soul in a manner conformed to our ra- 
tional and moral nature. This influence is 
founded in the knowledge of the truths of Chris- 
tianity, and of the motives contained in it, by 
which the human will is drawn, but not com- 
pelled. To this is added, on the part of man, 
the firm conviction of the divine origin and au- 
thority of this doctrine, and of the divine su- 
perintendence by which its effect on him is in- 
creased. Power to convince and reform is im- 
parted to and connected with the Christian doc- 
trine in the same way as power to germinate 
and grow is given to seed, and power to heal, 
to medicine. 

This last statement is in itself true and scrip- 
tural. Cf. Mark, iv. 28. But it is not incon- 
sistent with the other equally scriptural view of 
the influence of God on the heart of man. For 
he does not act on us otherwise than by means 
of the Christian doctrine, and consequently not 
in a compulsory and irresistible manner, but in 
a manner conformed to the moral nature of man, 
although the internal modus of his agency may 
be inexplicable to us. And who can explain the 
internal modus of the effects produced by God in 
the natural world 1 John, iii. 8. Vide s. 131, 
II. 4. To believe, therefore, that there is an 
in-fluxum (vim physicam, or as others express it, 
more guardedly, physico-analogam,) is, according 
to what has now been said, not contrary to scrip- 
ture, but conformed to it. 

(6) But however powerful the operation of the 
divine word, and of God by means of his word, 
may be, man himself must not, in the meantime, 
be inactive and sluggish ; Phil. ii. 12, 13. For 
the effect of the divine influence on the heart of 
any one depends on his making a right use 
and proper application of the divine doctrine, 
and on his whole conduct in regard to these di- 
vine influences. If he disregards these influ- 
ences, and neglects to improve them in the 
proper manner, he can no more be benefited by 
them than one can be satisfied and nourished 
without the use of food. Such is the uniform 
representation of the Bible. Vide Mark, iv. 20 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 465 



seq.; Luke, viii. 15, Kat s%£w %oyhv lv xaphla 
xaXy xai aya^yj, to embrace and obey the truth 
with an upright and sincere heart. 

(c) Theologians call the operations of grace 
supernatural. By this they cannot mean to de- 
note a direct, and of course irresistible, agency 
of God in the soul of man, or anything properly 
miraculous. This term cannot, therefore, be 
taken here in that strict sense in which philoso- 
phers use it. According to the Pelagian theory, 
these influences can be so called only because 
they are exerted through the divine doctrine 
which is supernaturally revealed, (in respect, 
therefore, to the means by which they are ex- 
erted ;) and hence are more efficacious than mere 
unassisted reason could be. Thus we call super- 
natural knowledge, that for which we are in- 
debted to divine. revelation, and natural, that to 
which we can attain through our own reflection. 
According to the theory of the ancient theolo- 
gians, which is more accordant with the holy 
scriptures, with Christ, and the apostles, these 
influences are also called supernatural, because 
they cannot be explained by any of the known laws 
of nature; John, iii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 2. Vide s. 131, 
II. 4. In respect to the manner in which the 
influences of grace are exerted on the human 
soul, a manner entirely suited to its moral na- 
ture, the operations of grace may, indeed, be 
denominated natural, as they are by Eberhard, 
in his " Apologie des Socrates." 

(d) Theologians distinguish between nature 
and grace. In this they follow Augustine. Vide 
s. 132, II. But they have differed very much 
in determining what are the motus gratise, and 
what the motus naturse, and how they can be dis- 
tinguished. The common opinion has been, that 
the doings of the unconverted, even their vir- 
tues, flow from their nature, and therefore, ac- 
cording to Augustine, are not pleasing to God, 
or capable of reward. Of the actions of the re- 
generate only can it be said that they are accept- 
able in his sight, and flow from the influences 
of grace. Vide Spener, Vom Unterschied der 
Natur und Gnade; Erfurt, 1715. But there are 
difficulties attending this opinion, s. 125. To 
determine the marks by which nature and grace 
may be distinguished, the matter can be stated 
as follows: — Everything which we owe to the 
right use of the Christian doctrine, and to the 
agency of God through his truth, is the effect 
of grace; and everything in us which has not 
its origin or foundation in the use of the divine 
truth is the effect of nature. If, then, we can 
ascertain how much we owe to our being in- 
structed in divine truth, and to the influences of 
God by its means, we may also know how much 
we owe to grace. Proceeding in this way, we 
do not treat nature (or that essential constitu- 
tion which God has given to man) with con- 
temptuous disregard; nor are we compelled, in 

59 



denying grace to the heathen, to deny decidedly 
that they had any virtue, or can attain to sal- 
vation. 

Note.—- In popular religious instruction the 
teacher should confine himself to such clear and 
scriptural points as Moms has exhibited, (pages 
236, 237, note 4,) illustrating these by the Bible 
and experience, and setting aside all learned 
theological disputes and scholastic terms. 

(1) God has endued man with reason and 
conscience. By the aid of these principles, 
man is enabled to learn much respecting the na- 
ture and will of God, and to act conformably to 
this correct knowledge, Rom. i. 19, 20 ; ii. 14, 
15, seq. 

(2) But the holy scriptures give us a far more 
perfect knowledge of God and of our duty. The 
revealed religion contained in them has much 
which is peculiarly excellent, and which is not 
taught in natural religion. And, according to 
the testimony of the scriptures, God has pro- 
mised his special assistance, support, and guid- 
ance, to those who possess them, and obey the 
precepts contained in them. And this promise 
is confirmed by experience; Rom. i. ii. We 
ought therefore thankfully to receive, and faith- 
fully to obey, the instruction contained in the 
holy scriptures. 

(3) No one can understand, discern, or receive 
with approbation the instructions of the holy 
scriptures, unless he is taught the truths con- 
tained in them ; nor can any one obey these in- 
structions, unless the hindrances which stand in 
the way of his reception of them, in his under- 
standing and will, are removed, 1 Cor. ii. 14. 

(4) To be delivered through divine instruction 
and assistance from our ignorance, our mistakes, 
prejudices, and from our evil passions, is a great 
and invaluable benefit; and we owe this benefit 
to none but God and the Holy Spirit. Vide the 
texts cited, s. 130. 

(5) There are, and always will be, great diffi- 
culties and hindrances, both within and without, 
by which our assent to the truths of revelation 
will be weakened, and our progress in holiness 
retarded; and these difficulties and hindrances 
cannot be overcome and removed without the 
constant assistance and support of God, John, 
v. 44; viii. 43, seq.; Ephes. iv. 18, and other 
passages. Vide s. 130, 131. 

(6) We need therefore, in commencing and 
continuing a life of piety, the help, support, and 
guidance of God. W^e ourselves, however 
must not in the meantime be inactive, but must 
conscientiously employ the means which God 
has given us, and faithfully obey the instruc- 
tions and directions contained in the Bible, al- 
ways remembering that we owe these means 
of improvement and virtue to God only, and 
that without him we can do nothing. Phil, 
ii. 12, 13. 



466 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



[Note. — The opinions of the Lutheran theolo- 
gians since the time of our author have been 
equally diversified as when he wrote, and per- 
haps more so. This is the less strange, as it is 
now a conceded point that their own established 
standards are at variance among themselves on 
the doctrine of the operations of grace. Cf. s. 
32, Note. Henke, Eckermann, and Wegschei- 
der, follow out the positions of Morus, Junk- 
heim, Michaelis, Doederlein, and others, to the 
full Pelagian extreme, and make the grace of 
God in conversion to be only that general 
agency by which he has endued, man with ra- 
tional powers, written the law upon his heart, 
instituted Christianity, and caused it to be pro- 
mulgated, and by which, in his providential ar- 
rangements, he gives to every man opportunity 
and excitement to repentance. Ammon also 
(Summa, s. 132, 133) makes the renewing 
grace of God to consist procuratione institutionis 
salutaris, excitatione per exempla virtutis illustria, 
pauperlate, calamitalibus, admonitionibus amico- 
rum et inimicorum. 

All these writers agree in making the opera- 
tions of grace merely external, in the way of 
moral influence, and in denying an immediate 
agency of God upon the human mind. In this, 
their system is stamped with one of the most 
essential features of Pelagianism. Cf. Nean- 
der's development of the Pelagian system in 
Part iii. of the 2nd vol. of his Church History. 

There is another class who are distinguished 
from the former by admitting an immediate di- 
vine agency in the moral kingdom, though they 
differ among themselves as to the relation of 
this influence to the agency of man, especially 
at the commencement of the life of faith. Bret- 
schneider contends strenuously for an immediate 
divine influence as indispensable to conversion. 
At the same time, he supposes it to depend upon 
the character and state of the individual who is 
the subject of this influence, whether grace alone 
produces faith in him, or whether he himself 
contributes anything towards it. The operations 
of grace, accordingly, are not uniform, but as 
various as the states in which it finds man, from 
untutored barbarism, to the highest degree of 
illumination and refinement enjoyed in Chris- 
tian lands. Nearly the same views are express- 
ed by Reinhard in his Theology. 

Neander and Tholuck, as will be obvious to 
any attentive reader of their works, hold promi- 
nently, that even in faith there is a divine ele- 
ment — that it can by no means result from the 
unaided efforts of man ; that, besides the gene- 
ral influence of Christianity, there is an internal 
influence of the Spirit of God — a drawing of the 
Heavenly Father — but that man also is active 
in this work; and that it is an unwarrantable 
assumption to undertake to settle immovable 
limits to these two conspiring agencies, or to 



solve the mystery belonging to the secret ope^ 
rations of grace. 

Again: Schleiermacher, Marheiaecke, and 
others belonging to the more appropriately phi- 
losophical school of theologians, have restored 
the entire system of Augustine as to immediate 
and efficacious grace, and the absolute and un- 
qualified dependence of man upon God for the 
very commencement of faith. With regard to 
this class, it is remarkable, that while Angus- 
tine and Calvin rested the proof of this doctrine 
mainly upon scriptural authority, these have been 
led to adopt and now maintain it on grounds 
purely philosophical. The weight of the names 
of such writers has raised the Augustinian and 
Calvinistic theory of grace far above the con 
tempt and reproach with which it was hereto 
fore treated by the great body of Lutheran theo- 
logians. 

A few extracts, under distincts heads, will 
shew something of the manner in which this 
doctrine is treated by writers of this class, and 
how much importance is attached by them to 
the idea that the divine influences are immediate, 
and not merely moral and external. Our ex- 
tracts are drawn from two of the more lucid and 
popular writers. The statements of Schleier- 
macher and others of the same school upon this 
subject, though still more decisive on the point 
in question, are so intimately interwoven with 
the whole of their system, and receive so much 
colouring from it, as to require more explanation 
to render them perfectly intelligible than the 
present limits will allow. 

That such an influence is to be desired, is af- 
firmed by Reinhard in the following passage 
from the 4th vol. of his "Moral," s. 129:— 
"When one considers the innate depravity of 
which man is conscious — the weakness of his 
moral powers hence resulting — the innumerable 
perversions to which those constitutional feel- 
ings and propensities which are in themselves 
good, are liable, the disordered states which 
arise from these perversions, and which more or 
less hinder a true moral development — in fine, 
the many external causes which nourish and 
strengthen depravity, and render genuine refor- 
mation exceedingly difficult, — when one who is 
in earnest in the work of improvement considers 
all this, he must feel the wish arise, that God 
would lighten this arduous work, and come in 
aid of his efforts." 

Objections having often been made to the pos- 
sibility of such influences, by Reimarus, Les- 
sing, and others, on the ground that violence 
would thus be done to the intellectual and moral 
nature of man, Bretschneider thus replies : — 
"That God has power to act inwardly on the 
souls of men, and to awaken ideas in their 
minds, cannot be denied. As the Creator of 
spirits he knows their nature, and how he can 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 467 



operate upon them ; and as almighty, he must 
be able to produce in his creatures any effect 
which he desires. Does any one deny this 
power to God, he erects between him and the 
spiritual world an insurmountable wall of par- 
tition; and in order to be consistent, must deny 
that God is the governor of the world in gene- 
ral, anymore than he is of the spiritual world. 
The possibility of an inward agency of God 
upon the world of spirits cannot therefore be de- 
nied, although the manner in which this agency 
is exerted is inscrutable; which indeed is true 
as to the manner of all the divine operations." 
# * a With what truth now is it presupposed 
that these influences must hamper the free 
agency of the mind, and reduce the subject of 
them to a mere machine ? Does not the very 
nature of the case require that reason, the reci- 
pient, should actively receive, retain, and appro- 
priate that which is given it ? Does not the 
teacher often, in giving instruction to the child, 
suddenly interrupt the course of his thoughts, 
and put him on an entirely new train of ideas 1 
But are the laws of mind in the child violated 
by this interruption? The teacher, it is said, 
makes use of words. But cannot God, by an 
adloquium internum, cause new thoughts in the 
souls of men ] Or are words the only possible 
way by which a Spirit can impart his light to 
other spirits, and teach them." Dogmatik, b. 
t s. 129, ff. 

But an immediate influence of this kind is not 
only desirable and possible, but also highly pro- 
bable. Here again Bretschneider remarks: — 
"As God stands in connexion with the material 
world, and by his most full and perfect life con- 
tinually operates upon it, he must also stand in 
constant connexion with the moral world, other- 
wise there could be no moral government." 
Dogmatik, b. ii. s. COO. This probability, drawn 
from the co-operation of God in the material 
world, is stated still more strongly by Rein hard. 
If there is an immediate concurrence and agency 
of God in the material world, as generally con- 
ceded by German philosophers and theologians, 
such an agency is much more to be expected in 
the moral world, since this is a far more conge- 
nial sphere for divine operations. " In the ma- 
terial sphere, the connexion between natural 
causes and effects is obvious to the senses, and 
must therefore be principally regarded by us, 
although even here the scriptures commonly 
mention only the highest and last cause, which 
is God. But in the kingdom of freedom, there 
is no such mechanical connexion between cause 
and effect, but an unimpeded intercommunion 
of beings freely acting; here, therefore, there 
can be no reason why we, with the scriptures, 
should not conceive of an immediate influence, 
since such an influence is far more adapted 
than one which is mediate, to the sphere of 



which are we now speaking." Moral, b. iv. 
s. 258. 

But while these writers contend for the fact 
of immediate divine influences in promoting the 
renewal of men, they are careful to guard against 
the perversion of this doctrine by enthusiasts 
and fanatics. " The reality of these influences," 
says Bretschneider, " cannot be proved from ex- 
perience. The influences of grace, as such, 
cannot be distinguished in consciousness from 
others; because our consciousness informs us 
only of the effect, and not of its origin; takes 
note only of the change itself which passes 
within us, but is unable to feel whether it comes 
from God. * * * As the agency of God in the 
material world always appears to us as natural, 
and in the effects produced we never discern the 
supernatural cause, so his agency in the moral 
world will always appear to us as natural, and 
conformed to the laws of psychology, and we 
are unable in our consciousness to distinguish 
him as the acting cause." Dogmatik, b.. ii. s. 
600. Cf. Reinhard's " Moral," b. iv. s. 264. 

In this manner do these writers contend for 
the fact of immediate divine influences, by argu- 
ments derived from the need of man, the perfec- 
tions of God, and the analogy of his agency in 
the material universe ; and at the same time 
guard against the perversions of this salutary 
opinion by enthusiasts who, in the words of 
Tucker, "think they can see the flashes of illu- 
mination, and feel the floods of inspiration pour- 
ed on them directly from the divine hand, and 
who undertake to give an exact history of all 
his motions from the very day and hour when 
he first touched their hearts." 

It may be remarked here, that Kant conceded 
the possibility of immediate operations of grace 
for the conversion of man, but denied that they 
could be either proved or disproved from philo- 
sophy. The belief in such influences he held 
to be useful in awakening the hope that God 
would do for us what we ourselves might be 
unable to accomplish in the work of our moral 
renovation. — Tr.] 



APPENDIX. 

OF PRAYER AS A MEANS OF GRACE. 

The doctrine respecting prayer is commonly 
treated in systematic theology in connexion with 
the doctrine of the operations of grace. But as 
the full discussion of this subject belongs rather 
to Christian ethics than to theology, it has by 
some theologians been either wholly omitted, or 
only cursorily noticed in their systems. On this 
subject we shall make here only the following 
remarks. The prayer of Christians is a means 
of grace included under Christian doctrine, and 



468 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



not to be separated from it. For the influence 
of prayer is not to be derived from the mere act 
of those who pray. It stands in connexion with 
the power of the religious truths to which prayer 
relates. 

(1) Statement of the philosophical theory 
respecting prayer. 

The following is the theory respecting prayer 
which has been adopted in modern times, espe- 
cially in the eighteenth century, by Mosheim 
and Morus, and which is held by many philo- 
sophical and theological moralists. One who 
institutes a merely philosophical examination of 
prayer, and passes by all the positive promises 
to the supplicant contained in the holy scrip- 
tures, and especially in the Christian system, 
will yet allow, if he understands the nature of 
man, a great moral influence to prayer. For it 
is the means of reminding us of the great truths 
of religion, and of impressing these truths deeply 
on our hearts. It excites, moreover, a sure and 
grateful confidence in God and his promises, and 
a longing desire after the enjoyment of the bless- 
ings which he has promised. It is therefore, in 
itself, of a most beneficial tendency, and has an 
indescribable influence in promoting moral im- 
provement, and in purifying the heart. A man 
is not prepared for the blessings which the 
Christian doctrine promises, and is not capable 
of free, moral improvement, unless he acknow- 
ledges God as the author of them, and has a 
lively perception of these benefits, and an ear- 
nest desire to obtain them. Now from this de- 
sire after divine blessings springs the wish, di- 
rected to God, that he would bestow them upon 
us, and this is the inward prayer of the heart. 
If these feelings are strong and vivid, it is com- 
mon and natural to us to express them in words 
and in the form of an address to God, whom we 
conceive to be present with us, and acquainted 
with our thoughts and wishes. (The verbal ex- 
pression is, however, by no means essential to 
prayer. A soul directed to God is all which is 
requisite.) By the very act of prayer, this vi- 
vidness of conception is very much heightened, 
and in this way our desires and our longings 
are cherished and strengthened by prayer itself. 
In this exercise God is made, as it were, pre- 
sent with us ; and while we are engaged in this 
duty, we feel as we are accustomed to feel in 
direct intercourse with a person who is near at 
hand listening to us, and who by our words and 
requests is rendered favourable towards us and 
becomes intimate with us. To the philosopher 
all this may appear illusion and imagination, 
but if he looks at experience, which on this sub- 
ject is worth more than all speculation, he will 
find that this aid is indispensable to any one 
who means to make religion a matter of serious 
and lasting interest. Experience shews that 
good thoughts, purposes, and resolutions, unac- 



companied by prayer, amount to nothing, be- 
cause they leave the heart cold and the mind 
unaffected. 

(2) Examination of this view of prayer. 

It is true that prayer, considered merely as a 
means of improvement, has great moral advan- 
tages — -i. e., that it has a great efftct on our 
moral improvement, that it withholds from evil, 
tranquillizes the soul, and is in every way pro- 
motive of the interests of morality and sincere 
religion. But it is also true, that it would 
cease to produce these results which are expect- 
ed from it if we should content ourselves with 
this theory of our philosophical moralists, and 
did not confidently hope to obtain the blessings 
for which we ask. One who considers the 
often-repeated assurances, " he that asks shall 
receive," &c, as delusive, and not serious or sin- 
cere, will find that he wants an inward impulse 
to prayer. He can exercise no earnest desires, 
no real confidence, and no hearty gratitude. It 
is not our business to inquire how God can hear 
and answer our supplications without infringing 
upon his immutability, or altering the establish- 
ed course of nature. We are to be satisfied 
with knowing that he can do more than we un- 
derstand, and that he can and will do every- 
thing which he has promised. Such consider- 
ations, connected with pergonal experience, are 
enough to secure us against every doubt. Nei- 
ther Christ, nor the other early teachers of 
morals, nor the prophets of the Old Testament, 
ever made use of the motives to prayer, so often 
used at the present day, derived merely from its 
moral advantages. Their great motive to prayer 
is, that it will be heard, upon which they could 
depend as confidently as the child does upon its 
father, when it requests what is needful for it. 
This is the great motive by which prayer should 
be inculcated on the common people and the 
young, otherwise they easily get the erroneous 
impression that prayer, as such, is of no advan- 
tage, and in reality useless, since it is not heard. 
On this account Jesus and the other teachers of 
morals and religion in ancient times did wisely, 
both in omitting to mention the motives to pray- 
er derived from its moral uses, and in inculcat- 
ing it on the simple ground that it is heard, 
without philosophizing upon the question, in 
what way it has an influence. And certainly 
Christians do well in holding fast to the doc- 
trine of Jesus and of the holy scriptures. Cf. 
Cramer, Die Lehre vom Gebet, nach OfFenba- 
rung und Vernunft untersucht, u. s. w. ; Keil 
und Hamburgh, 1786, 8vo; and Nitzsch, Diss. 
inaugural., Ratio qua Christus usus est in com- 
mendando precandi officio; Viteberg, 1790; 
also, " Nonnulla ad historiam de usu religiosa 
precationis morali pertinentia," by the same 
author, and published at the same place, 1790, 
4to. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 469 



Two points deserve particular consideration 
in this connexion. 

(a) The feeling- that prayer is necessary is 
absolutely universal. The history of all nations 
who have had any religion shews that prayer is 
everywhere recognised as an auxiliary to piety, 
which is indispensable and founded in our very 
nature. Experience, too, teaches that those re- 
ligions which inculcate frequent prayer, and in- 
sist upon it as a duty of the first importance, are 
the most practical, and can enumerate among 
their followers more examples of men eminent- 
ly religious and virtuous than other religions 
which make prayer of less importance, and at 
most prescribe certain public prayers and set 
formulas. Next to the Jewish and Christian 
religion, the Mohammedan has exerted the 
most influence on the heart, because it so stre- 
nuously inculcates prayer. This religion, next 
to the Jewish and Christian, has had the great- 
est number of truly religious professors and de- 
vout worshippers of God. [Cf. the work of 
Tholuck on Ssuffismus, or the doctrine of the 
SsufKs — a Mohammedan sect in Persia. — Tr.] 

(&) Christ makes it the special duty of his 
followers to supplicate God in his name, and 
promises to them a sure audience, which he 
would, as it were, procure for them, John, xiv. 
13 ; xvi. 23, 24. This duty is inculcated by the 
apostles upon all Christians. The sentiment of 
many passages taken together is this : Pray 
with reference to Christ and his work, conse- 
quently in belief or sure confidence in him and 
in his promises. In prayer we must be deeply 
convinced that he is the author of our salvation, 
that even now he is mindful of our interests, and 
makes the things for which we ask his own, and 
intercedes with God to hear our requests. In 
this respect he is represented as our Paracletus 
and Advocate with God, 1 John, ii. 1. But the 
blessings which Christianity promises to us are 
not temporal, but spiritual. Desire to obtain 
these is always conformable to the divine will, 
and as far as they are concerned, the hearing of 
prayer is certain. 



ARTICLE XIII. 



ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY 
OR CHURCH. 



[The common order is to treat, first, of the sacra- 
ments, and then of the church ; but the reverse order 
is in many respects more natural and proper; for 
both of these parts of divine service have a principal 
relation to the church. By baptism we are solemn- 
ly initiated into the church ; and by the Lord's Sup- 
per, the members of the church solemnly renew and 
perpetuate the remembrance of Jesus Christ, and of 



the blessings which he has bestowed upon the hu- 
man race.] 



SECTION CXXXIV. 

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; ITS 
OBJECT ; ITS NAMES ; AND THE DIVISIONS OF 
THE CHURCH COMMON IN THEOLOGY. 

I. Idea of the Christian Church,- its Object; and 
an Explanation of its Scriptural Names. 

The Christian church, in the widest sense, 
may be defined to be, the whole number of those 
who agree in worshipping God according to the 
doctrine of Jesus Christ. In this wider sense it 
agrees with the word Christendom. Its object 
is, to maintain and perpetuate the Christian doc- 
trine, and by means of ordinances and exercises 
observed in common, to promote the practice of it. 
Such is the great body of mankind, that wish- 
out some common duties and some external or- 
dinances, the Christian religion could scarcely 
be maintained among them ; certainly it could 
not be kept from totally degenerating. The 
government and preservation of the church are 
everywhere properly ascribed to Christ, as its 
head. The same scriptural principles are there- 
fore applicable here which were above laid 
down in the doctrinejespecting the kingdom of 
Christ, s. 98. 

The scriptural names of church are, 

(1) 'Exx^aia. This term is used by the 
Greeks to denote an assembly of men, called 
together on the authority of the magistracy ; 
from BxxavJco, evoco, convoco — e. g., Acts, xix. 
32, 39. The Hebrew Snp is used in the same 
way, especially in the books of Moses, and is 
commonly translated in the Septuagint by ix- 
x"hr t <3La. The same is true of the Hebrew Nips. 
The term hrp (nyv), denoted secondarily all 
those who belonged to the Jewish people, and 
professed the Jewish religion. Christians took 
the word from the Jews, and like them used 
ixx%r ( isia to denote (a) particular societies of 
Christians in particular cities or provinces — e. 
g., txx'krfiia iv 'ifpoaoXx^totj, x. t. %., Acts, viii. 
1 ; (b) the religious assemblies of these societies, 
and the places in which they met — e. g., 1 Cor. 
xi. 18; xiv. 19, 28, &c. ; (c) the whole sum of 
those who profess the Christian religion, wher- 
ever they may be — e. g., 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Matt. 
xvi. 18, seq. 

(2) Xwaycoyri and iriiGwayutyr]' and these, 
too, are used by the Septuagint to render the 
words Snp and my. But they were employed 
by the Grecian Jews about the time of Christ 
to denote their places of prayer, or oratories, and 
the congregations connected with them. Vide 
Vitringa, de Synagoga Vetere. And so we find 
them used in the New Testament, to denote the 
religious assemblies of Christians, and the 

2R 



470 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



places where they held them — e. g., Heb. x. 

25; James, ii. 2. These terms, however, were 
never used, like the preceding, to denote the 
whole of Christendom. 

(3) There were also various figurative names 
employed — e. g., j5a6o%.sta t!u>v ovpavav, or tov 
®sov, So frequently in the discourses of Christ. 
Vide s. 99, 1. But this term denotes not simply 
the Christian religion and church; it compre- 
hends all to whom belong the rights, duties, 
and the entire blessedness of the pious follow- 
ers of Christ, in this life and the life to come — 
e. g., John, iii. 3 ; Matt. v. 3. Xwp Xptctfov 
(of which he is the xefyahq) — a figurative ex- 
pression used to denote the intimate connexion 
between believers and Christ, and to impress 
upon them the duties of mutual harmony and 
brotherly love; Rom. xii. 5. He is the head, 
we the members, Eph. i. 22, also chap. iv. and 
v. Naoj ©fou, 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, — used to de- 
scribe the dignity and holiness of Christians, 
and the inviolableness of their rights. Olxo$ 
©fov, 1 Pet. iv. 17, seq. Besides these, all the 
terms used to designate the Israelites as the 
peculiar and favourite people of God are trans- 
ferred to Christians in the New Testament — e. 
g., Xao5 rtepLOvoios, TitUS, ii. 14; Xaoj els rtspt- 
7i6ir t <SLv (jtspntot.rfisuxi), 1 Pet. ii. 9; ixXtxiol, x. 
t. %. The Israelites were the ancient people of 
God, (under the TtaXaia Sia^rpc/],) in opposition 
to the new people of God, (under the xacvyj 8ca- 
ci-rixi].) And this ancient people is always re- 
garded as the stock from which the new sprung, 
Rorn. xi. 17, seq.; Acts, xv. 16. And on this 
very account Paul earnestly warns Christians, 
in the passage cited, against despising or un- 
dervaluing the Jews. 

II. Divisions of the Church. 

( 1 ) Into universal and particular. The church 
universal comprehends within itself all who 
profess the Christian doctrine, No. I. But since 
all Christians cannot agree respecting doctrines 
and forms of worship, it is natural that those 
who do agree in these respects should enter into 
a more intimate connexion. Hence have arisen 
particular churches, differing according to place 
and time, doctrine, forms, &c. Hence the divi- 
sion of the church into the Eastern, Western, 
Roman, African, Papal, Lutheran, Calvinistic, 
&c. Again; these particular churches are sub- 
divided into ecclesiee singulares, by which are 
understood the separate communions belonging 
to one particular church, since even these often 
differ according to time and place, and even 
with respect to doctrines and usages. Thus we 
have the Lutheran church in Saxony, Branden- 
burg, Sweden ; the Reformed church in Eng- 
land and Switzerland, &c. 

(2) Into the true church and false churches, 
and their subdivisions. This division must be 



retained in abstractor although it should be ap- 
plied very cautiously in concreto, or to particular 
cases. We may see, in general, that that Chris 
tian church deserves eminently the name of the 
true church in which there is an entire agree- 
ment with the doctrine of Jesus and the apos- 
tles. The more it obeys Christ in everything 
which he has commanded, the more worthy is 
it of this name, Eph. v. 23, 24. But there has 
never been a church respecting all whose mem- 
bers this could be said ; nor was there any such, 
even during the times of the apostles, as we see 
from their writings ; there has never been a par- 
ticular church wholly free from errors and devi- 
ations from the doctrine of Jesus. Christ him- 
self declares that in his church on earth there 
will always be error and truth, good and evil 
mingled together. Vide s. 135, II. It is there- 
fore better to say that is the true church, or, 
more properly, has the most truth, in which 
there is found a nearer agreement with the doc- 
trine of Jesus and the apostles than in other 
churches. 

On this subject the opinions of Christians are 
so divided that it is impossible to give' any ge- 
neral characteristic marks of the true church 
which would be approved.by all. The defini- 
tion of the true church will always depend upon 
the individual belief and conviction of every 
Christian ; and each one regards that church as 
true which is most accordant with his own 
views. The following principles, however, 
may be of some practical importance : — 

(a) No one church is in the exclusive pos- 
session of the truth. There are in every church 
faults, defects, and errors; and so it was at the 
time of the apostles, and so it is in all human 
societies and institutions. 

(b) Nor is there, on the other hand, any 
Christian church which is wholly wanting in 
the truth, or which does not profess many use- 
ful and important truths, although mixed more 
or less with error. We cannot in this matter 
judge of the particular members of a church 
from the established and received doctrines of 
their church without doing the greatest injus- 
tice. In this respect wrong is often done ; for 
experience teaches that there are often good 
Christians in a church which professes many 
errors, and which has a bad constitution; and, 
on the contrary, that there are often connected 
with very excellent church-establishments those 
who are unworthy of the Christian name. These 
observations have given occasion to the division 
of the church into pure and impure, according 
as more or less errors or false principles are em- 
braced. We also speak of a corrupt church, by 
which is meant particularly a church in which 
false moral principles, exerting an injurious in 
fluence upon the life and Christian walk, are 
mingled with Christian doctrine. It remains 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 471 



thtrefore true, that the separate Christian com- 
munions are of different value and excellence 
according to their greater or less purity in doc- 
trine, and according to the greater or less adapt- 
edness of their external polity and forms to pro- 
mote moral improvement. It cannot therefore 
be in itself an indifferent matter to which of 
these one belongs. No one, however, should 
desire to make his own individual conviction 
the unconditional rule for all others, and despise 
and condemn those who do not agree with him- 
self. 

(c) If there is no church in which the system 
of doctrine, the regulations, forms of worship, 
&c, are perfect and incapable of improvement, 
it follows that improvements may and ought to 
be made in them whenever and wherever there 
is a necessity for it, and that it is an entirely 
false maxim to adhere invariably to what is an- 
cient, and never to alter. It does not belong, 
however, to any particular member, not even to 
a public teacher, to urge his supposed improve- 
ments upon the church. And correct as is the 
principle de reformatione ecclesise, in the abstract, 
its practical application is attended with very 
great difficulties. 

(e?) To unite externally all the different 
churches is not practicable ; and even if it could 
be done, would occasion more injury than bene- 
fit. And notwithstanding all the difference as 
to opinion and form in religious matters, mutual 
love and toleration may still exist. This is 
proved by the history of the church in ancient 
and modern times. 

(3) The church is divided into visible and in- 
visible. This division is entirely rejected in 
several of the new systems — e. g., in those of 
Gruner, Doderlein, and others. They seem, 
however, to have taken offence merely at the 
terms. These are, indeed, new ; and have come 
into use since the Reformation. But the thing 
itself which is intended by these terms is well 
supported, and is as ancient as the Christian 
church itself, and was acknowledged as true by 
Christ and the apostles and the whole early 
church. These terms came into use in the fol- 
lowing way : — Luther denied that the Romish 
church, according to the doctrine and polity 
which it then professed, is the true church. It 
was then asked, Where then was the true church 
before him? To which he answered, that it 
was invisible — i. e., before the Reformation 
those Christians had constituted the true church, 
and held the pure doctrine, who, without re- 
garding the authority and commandment of 
men, had followed the scriptures according to 
their own views, had lived piously, and kept 
themselves free from the errors of the public 
religion; and such persons there always had 
been, even at the most corrupt periods, although 
they had not always been known. It was from 



this just observation that this division arose. 
Cf. Confess. August., Art. vii. anu viii., and 
Apol. A. C. 

Protestants understand by the invisible church 
true Christians, who not only know- the precepts 
of Christ, but from the heart obey tnem, Matt. 
vii. 21. This church is not always clearly seen ; 
indeed, to speak justly, it is known only to God, 
Col. iii. 3; while from the eyes of men, who 
judge only according to the external appearance, 
it is wholly concealed. On the contrary, the 
visible church consists of all who by profession 
belong externally to the church — i. e., attend 
public worship, partake of the sacraments, &c. ; 
for wherever the Christian doctrine is proclaim- 
ed, and the rites prescribed by it are observed, 
there the visible church is. Not every one, 
therefore, who belongs to the visible church, 
even if it be one of the best, does on this account 
belong also to the invisible church. For in the 
visible church there are often wicked men and 
hypocrites. This is not, then, a division generis 
in species, but eadem res diver so respechi. The 
same is true with respect to other societies — 
e. g., the republic of the learned. 

There are not wanting passages in the New 
Testament in which this distinction is plainly 
made, although it is not expressed in this man- 
ner. For, first, the word txxi^la in many texts 
denotes the whole number who make an outward 
profession of Christianity, without having any 
reference to their inward state — e. g., 1 Cor. i. 
2, &c. Vide No. I. But, secondly, in other 
passages such predicates are given to the church 
as do not apply to all who profess Christ, but 
only to that better and nobler part which is 
called the invisible church — e. g., Eph. v. 27, 
ay/a, a^uao?, /xrj t%ovaa 07H%ov r, {.vt^Sa, &C. 
Here belongs the remarkable passage, Mark, ix. 
38 — 40, where the disciples of Jesus would not 
acknowledge a person to be a genuine follower 
of Christ, because he did not belong to their 
society, their external church, and was not, as 
it were, enrolled as belonging to their corpora- 
tion ; on which point Christ sets them right. 
Cf. Matt. xv. 22, seq. That in the visible 
church (f3aciXe<.'a t <hv ovpavwr) the evil and the 
good are mingled together, and cannot be exter- 
nally separated without injury to the whole, is 
taught by Christ in the excellent parable, Matt, 
xiii. 24 — 30. The wicked are compared with 
the tares, although they belong to the external,, 
visible church; but the good, who belong both 
to the visible and invisible church, are compared 
with the wheat. Cf. the text, Matt. vii. 21, 
above cited. 

Note. — Christ regards all who from the heart 
believe in him (the members of the invisible 
church) as a present which God has given him, 
and so calls them ; and upon them, he says, he 
bestows eternal life. Vide John, vi. 37 ; xvii. 



472 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



2, 6. The better, pious part of mankind are 
spoken of as belonging to God, — they are his 
children ; and this his possession he gives over 
to the charge of Christ, to lead them to eternal 
life. This is a great and heart-affecting idea ; 
and if such a thought had been found in Plato 
or Xenophon, there would have been no end of 
praising it; but in the holy scriptures it is less 
regarded. 

(4) The church is divided again into militant 
and triumphant. By the church militant is 
meant Christians in the present life, so far as 
they have to contend with many internal and 
external sufferings, adversities, and persecu- 
tions. By the church triumphant is meant the 
society of Christians in heaven, so far as they 
are freed from all these trials, and enjoy the 
most perfect rest and blessedness. The church, 
however, is here used, in the narrower sense, 
for the invisible church and its members. This 
division was taken principally from the text, 
Rev. xii. 7, seq., though this rs rather a descrip- 
tion of the rest to which the church will be re- 
stored here upon the earth, after long persecu- 
tions and calamities. It is also derived from 
those passages in which the dangerous and toil- 
some life of Christians is compared with a strife 
and conflict, which will soon be over — e. g., 2 
Tim. iv. 7. Here too must be mentioned the 
text, Heb. xii. 22, 23, where the noble thought 
is exhibited, that we compose but one society 
with the host of blessed angels and the company 
of the saints now rewarded in heaven (tfai'fa.stco- 
uivuv 8ixai<x>v), of whom Jesus is the Head ; and 
that when we have completed our course here 
below, we shall join this upper society in our 
native land. 

Note. — Among the writings of the older pro- 
testant theologians, in which this division and 
the other topics introduced in this section are 
treated very thoroughly, that of Jo. Musaeus, Be 
Ecclesia, (Jenae, 1675,) deserves particular men- 
tion. 

SECTION CXXXV. 

ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; THE 
ECCLESIASTICAL TERMS COMMONLY EMPLOYED 
TO DESIGNATE THEM, AND THEIR SIGNIFICA- 
TION. 

It has been common, in imitation of the an- 
cient confessions, to predicate of the true church 
the four attributes, una, sancta, catholica, aposto- 
lica. In the apostolic symbol it is called a holy 
Christian church, the society of the saints ,- in the 
Nicene symbol, one only, holy, Christian, apos- 
tolic church. Most of these terms are taken from 
the New Testament, though they are there used 
in a different sense from that in which they are 
employed in the later ecclesiastical phraseology. 
And this difference should be carefully noted. 



It must be remarked in general that all these at- 
tributes properly apply only to the invisible 
church, although many of them may be predi- 
cated also of the visible church, when rightly ex- 
plained. The doctrine of the perpetuity of the 
church may be most conveniently considered in 
connexion with these. 

I. Unity of the Church. 

This predicate has an entirely different mean- 
ing in the New Testament from that which it 
bears in the common ecclesiastical phraseology. 
Its two significations will therefore be separately 
considered. 

(I) When the unity of the church is spoken 
of in the New Testament it is a moral unity 
which is intended. The import of this term is, 
that all who worship God according to the doc- 
trine of Jesus should regard themselves as mem- 
bers of one society, and as such should exercise 
mutual brotherly love; that notwithstanding all 
differences of birth, condition, knowledge, opi- 
nions, and forms, they should still constitute 
but one church, or religious society, worshipping 
one and the same Lord, even Christ, and par- 
taking in common of the blessings promised to 
his followers. That there should be such a 
union among his followers was the last will, the 
testament of Christ; John, xiii. 34, coll. xv. 1, 
seq. And in order to this, it is not essential 
that there should be a full and entire agreement 
of opinion on every particular doctrine. Chris- 
tians, though differing as to their mode of think- 
ing, their particular opinions and forms, and 
though divided into particular communions, 
ought to regard themselves as constituting still 
but one church, and so to live together in unity 
of spirit. This is the true spirit of Christianity ; 
it infuses feelings of toleration. And the more 
one has of the mind of Christ the more tolerant 
will he be to others ; and especially, because he 
knows that not only his Lord, but his brethren, 
see much in him which requires forbearance. 
Vide Tit. iii. 3—5. 

This unity of the church is mentioned in 
those passages in the New Testament in which 
warnings are given against disturbers of the 
peace and against controversies ; and in those 
also in which it is taught that it is the design of 
Christianity to remove all distinction between 
Jew and Gentile, and to unite all nations in a 
common religion; respecting which vide sec. 
118,11. 

The principal proof-texts here are, John, 
xvii. 20, Iva Ttavtz$ IV wgiv John, x. 16, " one- 
fold, one shepherd ;" and Ephesians, iv. 3 — 6, 
and ver. 13, hoir,^ 7tv£vuai?o$, because all wor 
ship one God and one Christ, have one baptism 
and one doctrine. The tvotr^ 7tioteu$ in ver. 13 
is one and the same Christian doctrine, professed 
alike by Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 473 



who ought therefore to love each other as bre- 
thren. Galatians, iii. 28, 7tdvte$ flj kv Xptcrtfcj. 
Rom. xii. 5, 7io%%ol IV Gw/xd icy-sv, coll. ver. 
13; x. 17; 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 ; viii. 6. The true 
spiritual unity of Christians is therefore placed 
by Christ himself in this, that they believe in 
the only true God, and in Jesus, as the Saviour 
of the world ; that they love him, and from love 
to him obey his commandments, and especially 
that they love one another. By this only can 
the true disciples of Christ be known; not by 
external names and forms, but by faith, work- 
ing 1 by love — the love of Christ and our neigh- 
bour. 

(2) But there gradually arose, after the second 
and third centuries, an entirely different concep- 
tion of the unity of the church. It first origin- 
ated among the fathers in the West, in conse- 
quence of their transferring to Christianity cer- 
tain incorrect Jewish ideas which were disap- 
proved by Jesus and his apostles, and which had 
the most injurious results. The unity of the 
church was placed by them in an entire external 
agreement as to those doctrines and forms which 
were handed down from the times of the apos- 
tles, through the churches founded by them, and 
in the external connexion and fellowship of the 
particular societies founded upon this agree- 
ment. 

The most ancient passages relating to this 
subject are found in Irenaeus, (i. 10,) Tertullian 
(De Prescript. Haeret. c, 20, ad fin.) and Cy- 
prian, (in his Book, "DeUnitate Ecclesise.") 
The object contemplated in this external con- 
nexion of churches was at first very good ; it was 
designed by this means to set bounds to the ever 
encroaching corruption in doctrine and life, and 
to remove false teachers. But when the rulers 
of the churches no longer possessed the genuine 
spirit of Jesus, then, through these principles 
and the consequences derived from them, the 
hierarchy was gradually established ; and into- 
lerance and the spirit of persecution and anathe- 
matizing became very prevalent. Even the pa- 
pal hierarchy rests entrirely upon these princi- 
ples, and originated from them. The principal 
bishops now established a kind of college or se- 
cret society; and this unity of the church was made 
dependent, first, upon many heads, then, upon 
one visible head of the church. And whoever 
ventured to dissent from the doctrine or the ordi- 
nances of the principal bishops, who held toge- 
ther and governed their churches, was excluded 
from church-fellowship and declared a heretic. 
Even Cyprian derived the one true church in 
the West from Peter, because he taught at Rome, 
and because the church there was the mother of 
most of the churches in the West. The bishops 
regarded themselves therefore as the successors 
of the apostles, and as the representatives of God 
and of Christ; and whoever was excluded by 
60 



them from church-fellowship was excluded by 
God himself; and it was early believed and 
taught that he was at the same time excluded 
from salvation. Vide s. 128, II. Hence even 
Cyprian states in his book the principle, extra 
ecclesiam illam unicam et veram [externam or 
visibilem~\ non dari salutem — a principle from 
which so many false doctrines were afterwards 
deduced. Vide s. 121, II. 

Upon these supports "does the whole false 
system of the hierarchy in the Romish church 
depend. Vide Henke, De Unitate Ecclesise, in 
his " Opuscula." But there is no such societas 
Christiana, nor ought there, according to the de- 
sign of Jesus, to be any which shall resemble 
civil societies ; for this leads to a hierarchy, and 
all the evil consequences which flow from the 
collision of secular and spiritual power. 

Protestants have never had properly one 
church, but churches, (ecclesias.) Such, at least, 
is the language employed iu the Augsburg Con- 
fession, Art. vii., and in the other public instru- 
ments, even in the peace of Westphalia; and it 
is in this that protestantism is distinguished from 
consolidated popedom. The Roman-catholic idea 
of the church is vindicated in a very subtile and 
plausible manner in the work, "Idea Biblica 
Ecclesise Dei," by Franc. Oberthiir, vol. i. ; 
Salzburg, 1790, 8vo, vol. ii. 1799. He pro- 
ceeds on the definition, Quod sit ecclesia schola 
quaedam, quam Deus erexerit, nutriendae ac pro- 
movendx internse religionis causa, in which, 
however, there does not seem to be anything 
insidious. 

II. The Sanctity of the Church. 

This is twofold — viz., 

(1) External; and this is predicated of the 
church so far as it is distinguished from other 
religious societies (e. g., Jewish or Gentile) by 
the superior excellence of its religious princi- 
ples. In this wider sense, even the Jews are, 
in the Old Testament, often denominated holy ; 
and taken in this sense, the visible Chris- 
tian church may justly be called holy ,• for it is 
not the moral character of the members which 
is designated by the term in this wider sense. 
And so all Christians, even those who are such 
merely by external profession, are often deno- 
minated dyiot in the New Testament. Vide s. 
126, IV.; also 1 Pet. ii. 9. 

(2) Internal, or moral. The whole object of 
the establishment of the church, and the instruc- 
tion communicated in Christian doctrine, is to 
bring the members of the church, under divine 
guidance, to this internal holiness. This is said 
by Paul in the passage cited, Ephes. v. 26, 27, 
coll. Tit. ii. 1 4. But this object is not actually 
attained in respect to all who belong to the ex- 
ternal visible church, but only in those who 
belong to the invisible church. It can therefore 

2r2 



474 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



be truly 9aid only of the invisible church, that 
it is holy in this internal, moral sense. 

Many have been led, by confounding 1 these 
different meanings, and by misunderstanding 
those passages in which it is made the duty of 
every Christian to be holy, to adopt the princi- 
ple that even the external or visible church must 
be a society consisting only of renewed persons 
or saints, and that a church which tolerates 
within itself unholy t)r unregenerate persons 
cannot be a true church, and so is to be ex- 
cluded from Christian fellowship. It was on 
these principles that the Novatians proceeded 
in the third century, and the Donatists in the 
fourth and fifth. And they were still more fre- 
quently maintained by the Anabaptists and 
other fanatical sects in the sixteenth century. 
The same principles have been revived in still 
more modern times by the quakers, and many 
other fanatics and separatists. 

But they do not consider that in all external 
human societies good and evil must be mixed, 
and that often the Omniscient only can discern 
and distinguish the hypocrites, who are much 
more injurious than the openly vicious. And 
so Christ pronounced that the external church 
could never be pure from evil, and that the tares 
and the wheat must be suffered to grow toge- 
ther; Matt. xiii. 3, seq., ver. 24 — 31, 47 — 50; 
and so, too, he himself endured Judas among his 
apostles. Too great severity often terrifies the 
good and keeps them at a distance ; and wicked 
ancestors often have descendants who are good 
and useful members of the church, but who 
would not have been so if their ancestors had 
been excluded. The external, visible church 
cannot, therefore, be a society consisting of 
pious Christians only; it is rather a nursery 
(seminarium), designed to raise up many for 
the invisible kingdom. 

Still, however, it is always right, and cer- 
tainly according to the spirit of Christ, for like- 
minded Christians to associate together, and to 
establish among themselves institutions which 
they may deem promotive of piety, or even to 
form smaller societies, in which they will permit 
those c ily to participate who have a like object 
and possess similar dispositions with them- 
selves, excluding all others, the eeclesioke in eccle- 
sia of which Spener spoke. They should beware, 
however, against running in this way into spiri- 
tual pride, against holding themselves to be bet- 
ter than others, and against regarding those who 
do not join them, and are not enrolled among 
them, as worse Christians than themselves. 
It does not belong to the government to interdict 
such associations, if they do not disturb civil 
peace and order, any more than to forbid and 
hinder other private associations of citizens for 
other lawful objects. The reasons for and 
against these associations are canvassed in 



Burkhardt's " Geschichte der Methodislen;" 
Niirnberg, 1795, s. 123, f. The history of the 
church teaches that these smaller associations 
have had, upon the whole, a highly beneficial 
effect. In times of ignorance and unbelief they 
have been the depositories of uncorrupted Chris- 
tianity. Without the Waldenses, the Wick- 
lifites, and the Hussites, the Reformation would 
never have taken place. 

III. The Catholic and Apostolic Church. 

A different idea is attached to the term catho- 
lic in modern times, and especially in the pro- 
testant church, from that which anciently be- 
longed to it. Catholic is now used in its etymo- 
logical sense, and is synonymous with universal. 
And the church is said to be universal, because 
all in the whole earth who profess Christ belong 
to it, and because Christianity is not merely a 
national religion, or the religion of a country, 
but one which may be professed by all men 
without distinction. The church is called apos- 
tolical, because the members of it profess to 
adopt the doctrine taught by the apostles, and 
contained in their writings; according to Eph. 
ii. 20, "built upon the foundation of the apos- 
tles." But anciently xo&oa*xof was synony- 
mous with op^dSofoj, and fides catholica was the 
same as fides orthodoxa, which was the faith 
held in opposition to heretics, because it was 
supposed that the true faith, which accords with 
the will of Christ and the apostles, must be the 
universal faith of all Christians, and be found 
in all the churches established by the apostles. 
Hence ecclesia catholica is that qusc habet fidem 
sive veritatem catholicam — i. e., the right and 
pure doctrine and constitution, in opposition to 
those churches which have not the pure aposto- 
lic doctrine, but belong to the heretics. They 
proceeded on the principle that there is only one 
true church, (vide No. I.,) and in order to es- 
tablish and maintain this, the principal churches 
and their bishops throughout the Roman empire 
(xo^ 1 o%7jv olxovixBvyiv) had gradually formed a 
separate church union. Whatever agreed with 
this was xcx^roUxov, otherwise alpstcxov. The 
genuine apostolic doctrine was supposed, how- 
ever, to be found in those churches which the 
apostles themselves had founded. To these 
churches, and to the doctrine handed down in 
them from the times of the apostles, the appeal 
was therefore made, in the controversies in 
which the catholic fathers were engaged with 
the heretics; and it was by this appeal, an ap- 
peal to tradition, that they confuted them. Vide 
Introduction, s. 7, III. But the whole body of 
Christian churches professing the orthodox doc- 
trine handed down in the apostolic churches 
were called the catholic, orthodox, or apostolic 
church, because they all agreed in the doctrines, 
and regulations prescribed by the apostles to 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 475 



the oh irches founded by them — e. g., by Peter 
to the church at Rome, by Paul to that at Ephe- 
sus, &.c. The earliest passages relating to this 
subject are found in Irenaeus, Adv. Hseres, 1. 
iii., and especially in Tertullian, De Prescript. 
Haer., c. 20, 21. It is there said, for example, 
Tot ac tantse ecclesise, una est ,- ilia ab apostolis 
prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes primse, et omnes 
apostolicae dum una; omnes probant unitatem, 
etc. Vide the Essay of Henke before cited. 

Note. — The infallibility of the church was 
not believed during the first centuries. Between 
the period of the Nicene Council in the fourth 
century, and Gregory the Seventh, many traces 
of this opinion appear. From Gregory the 
Seventh until the Western schism in the four- 
teenth century, it was placed mostly in the in- 
fallibility of the pope. From that period until 
the Council at Trent, the idea prevailed that 
only the church collected in general council is 
infallible. Since that period, the opinions of 
catholic theologians have been divided on this 
point. Some (the genuine Romanists) make the 
pope the subject of this infallibility ; others (and 
among these even Febronius) suppose the oecu- 
menical councils alone infallible; others still 
(and principally the French theologians since the 
middle of the seventeenth century) attribute in- 
fallibility only to the church dispersed at large. 
At present this doctrine is wholly abandoned 
by some of the more liberal catholic theologians. 
Vide the excellent book (written by a catholic,) 
entitled Kritische Geschichte der kirchlichen 
Unfehlbarkeit, zur Beforderung einer freyern 
Priifung des Katholicismus, Frankf. a. M. 1792, 
8vo. Cf. also the very learned and liberal 
work, entitled "Thomas Freykirch, oder Frey- 
muthige Untersuchung von einem katholischen 
Gottesgelehrten iiber die Unfehlbarkeit der ka- 
tholischen Kirche, lr. b. ; Frankf. und Leipzig, 
1792, 8vo. 

IV. The Perpetuity of the Church. 

Christ himself teaches, with the greatest as- 
surance, that the religious society and constitu- 
tion founded by him will never cease, but be 
perpetual. All the powers of decay and destruc- 
tion shall not get advantage over it, rtv'kai aSov 
(where all which perishes or is destroyed upon 
the earth is collected) ov xa-ti6%voovoLv avt?j<;, 
Matt. xvi. 18. It is the doctrine of the New 
Testament that Christ, as the Ruler of the 
church, is now actively employed in heaven for 
its good, and that he will continue until the end 
of the world to support and enlarge it. Vide 
Matt, xxviii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25, coll. Ephes. iv. 
16, and s. 98, respecting the kingdom of Christ. 
This, however, is not to be so understood as to 
imply that the particular forms of doctrine which 
prevail at any particular time, and the particu- 
lar church communions originating from them, 



will be of perpetual duration. Changes must 
necessarily here take place. The history of the 
church teaches that one mode of church polity 
succeeds another, and that yet, however great 
these changes may be, Christianity still sur- 
vives. External constitutions and economies 
resemble the scaffolding, which aid in the con- 
struction of the building, but are not the build- 
ing itself. They may be taken down and broken 
to pieces when they have answered their pur- 
poses, and the building will then proceed in a 
different way. That this is so, is proved by the 
history of the church. It has been, however, a 
common mistake for the members of certain par- 
ticular churches — e. g., the catholic, Lutheran, 
and others, to suppose that if their particular 
constitution should cease the whole Christian 
church and Christianity itself would perish. 
So most in all the separate communions still 
think, and always have thought; and yet the 
Christian doctrine and church have hitherto 
been perpetuated, notwithstanding the greatest 
revolutions in states and in ecclesiastical poli- 
ties; and this beyond a doubt would still be the 
case, even if the particular churches and esta- 
blishments now existing should perish. The 
spirit and essential nature of Christianity may 
remain, however much its external form may be 
altered. Christianity, however, is not so con- 
nected with any one place or nation that it must 
necessarily be perpetuated there, nor has any 
one church a promise that its descendants shall 
be Christians. We know from the history of 
the church, that where Christianity was once 
most flourishing, it has since been expelled, 
either by superstition or unbelief, and it has 
thence travelled to other regions which were 
formerly sunk in the deepest night of ignorance. 
Let the reader call to mind the former flourishing 
condition of the Eastern churches, and then com- 
pare with it their present state. Every church 
should make the use of this fact which is sug- 
gested in Rev. ii. 5. 

SECTION CXXXVI. 

OF THE HEAD OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; AND 
OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED TO MAIN- 
TAIN AND EXTEND IT, ESPECIALLY THROUGH 
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC TEACHING. 

I. The Head of the Church. 

The only true Head and supreme Lord of the 
Christian church is Jesus Christ, according to 
the uniform doctrine of Christ himself and the 
apostles. Vide Morus, p. 278, s. 2. Those 
who profess his doctrine are brethren, and as 
such have equal rights. Vide Matt, xxiii. 8. 
Hence he is called <5 Ttoiixrp, op^frrtot/AaJv, x. r. X. 
John, x. 12; 1 Pet. v. 4; Heb. xiii. 20; and 
xi^a.%ri £xx"kr]6tas, Ephes. i. 22, iv. 15 ; Col. ii 



476 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



10. Nor is he called by these titles merely in 
a figurative sense, but because, in his exalted 
state, he exercises unwearied and watchful care 
over men, and especially over his church and 
its members. Vide s. 98, respecting the king- 
dom of Christ. 

Christ therefore by no means wished that his 
apostles should exercise a lordly dominion over 
other Christians, Luke, xxii. 24, and they never 
assumed such authority, but expressly protested 
against it. Vide 1 Pet. v. 1—3 ; 1 Cor. v. 6, 
seq. Nor was it his will that one of the apos- 
tles, or his successors, should possess supre- 
macy and magisterial power over the church, 
like what is asserted in the Romish church re- 
specting Peter and his successors, of which 
there is not a trace in the New Testament or in 
the first centuries, as appears from church his- 
tory. The text, Matt. xvi. 18, upon this rock I 
will build my church, relates indeed to Peter and 
his merits in diffusing the Christian faith. For 
history teaches that he really laid the first foun- 
dation of the great building of the house of God 
after the departure of Christ, both from the Jews, 
Acts ii., and from the Gentiles, Acts x. — a 
building which is firmly based (built on a 
rock,) and which will endure until the end of 
the world, whence he is always pre-eminent 
among the apostles. But nothing is said in this 
oassage respecting his own supreme and judi- 
sial power over the church, or that of his suc- 
cessors. Peter is here spoken of as a disciple, 
ind not as a ruler and governor. Morus ex- 
plains this passage very well, (p. 284, seq. n. 3.) 

It is therefore justly affirmed in the protestant 
•ihurch that Christ has constituted no visible 
<*ead of the whole church who is to hold his 
$>lace upon the earth, and to act and make de- 
crees as his representative and in his name. 

It is quite another question, Whether the 
Christian church has not the right to commit to 
some one the charge and government of its exter- 
nal public concerns? This right the church cer- 
tainly has ; and if good order is to be preserved, 
it must be exercised, because all the members 
of the church cannot take part in its govern- 
ment. Inus it was in the apostolic church. 
But the otit,, or the many, who are appointed to 
this duty, aad who constitute an ecclesiam re- 
prsesentativu i, possess this pre-eminence not 
jure divino, but numano. They ought not 
therefore to give out their decretals as divine, 
and in the name ui' t*od. Their enactments are 
merely human, at * ought to have no more than 
human authority mey may be altered, im- 
proved, &c. 

Since, moreover n every well-organized so- 
ciety there must be JuDordination, no^good rea- 
son can be given why this should not be intro- 
duced among the oncers and teachers of the 
Christian church, and why one should not have 



more authority than another. In this way, at a 
very early period, a great pre-eminence over the 
other occidental bishops was ascribed to the 
Roman bishops, and he was called the head of 
the (occidental) church, while as yet there was 
no absolute dominion or magisterial power over 
the church allowed him. But for a further ac- 
count of this matter we must refer to canon law 
and church history. 

II. The Office of Teaching in the Church. 

Every Christian has the right, and indeed is 
under obligation, to do all in his power to main- 
tain and promote Christian knowledge and feel- 
ing. Vide Rom. xv. 14; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. v. 
19 ; vi. 4 ; 1 Thess. v. 14. But since all Chris- 
tians have not the time, talents, or other qualifi- 
cations requisite for this work, some were set 
apart by Christ, whose appropriate business and 
calling it should be to teach and counsel those 
committed to their charge ; and these were to 
be the instruments through whom he designed 
that his doctrine should be maintained and trans- 
mitted, and the practice of it promoted. Paul 
therefore derives the institution of the different 
kinds of officers and teachers in the church di- 
rectly from God and Christ, and says that each 
received a different office and employment, ac- 
cording to his talents and gifts; 1 Cor. xii. 28; 
Eph. iv. 11, 12; and in the latter passage he 
says that this arrangement was made for the 
perfection and edification of the Christian 
church, (rfpof xatapt^ixov — sis olxobojx^v out/xato^ 
Xpwtov.) They are hence called vTtrjpetas and 
hidxovoi ®eov and XpttfT'o'D — those who stand in 
the service of God and Christ, and are employed 
by them as instruments. They are also called 
fellow workers with God, (csvvspyoi,,) 1 Cor. iii. 9. 

The Christian office of teaching was therefore 
appointed by Jesus Christ himself as an insti- 
tution designed for the maintenance and spread 
of the gospel through all ages. And he had 
the right to do this, as being commissioned and 
authorized by God himself to be the founder 
and head of his church. No one of his follow- 
ers can therefore consistently undervalue this 
institution, or wilfully withdraw himself, on any 
pretence, from the assemblies of Christians for 
the purpose of religious instruction. Matt, 
xxviii. 18—20; Eph. iv. 11, seq.; Heb. x. 25. 
But it is necessary, in order to obviate various 
abuses and mistakes, that we should here more 
particularly illustrate some points relating to the 
office of teaching. 

(1) The apostles were set apart, as public 
teachers and as founders of Christian churches, 
directly by Christ himself; and they again, as 
ambassadors for Christ, appointed a perpetual 
office of teaching, and the public assembling of 
Christians for worship, and other institutions, 
calculated to impart strength and perpetuity to 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 477 



the church. Cf. the first chapters of the Acts of 
the Apostles. Cf. also Spalding, Vom Werth 
und Nutzen des Predigtamts, 2te Ausg. ; Berlin, 
1773, 8vo. 

The teachers in the apostolic church are di- 
vided into ordinary and extraordinary. Among 
the latter are included the apostles themselves, 
the evangelists, (who were missionaries and as- 
sistants of the apostles,) and in general all who 
were not appointed as permanent teachers over 
particular churches, but who were employed in 
extending Christianity, and in founding new 
churches. Among the former — the ordinary and 
permanent officers and teachers of each particu- 
lar church — were inlaxcntoi, 7tpsGJ3v<t£poi, Ttoi- 
!*.(*£$, Stddaxa'koL, (of which the general name is 
rjyvviABvot, officers, rulers of the church, Hebrews, 
xiii. 7, 17, 24.) Some of these had more to do 
with the external concerns of the church, {pres- 
byteri regentes, rtoLfAsves,) and others were more 
especially employed in instruction, (presbyteri 
docentes, 8id6.6xa%oi,.) But for a more particular 
account of this matter we must refer to church 
history. 

These officers and teachers were not appointed 
immediately by Christ himself; and in the first 
church they were not always appointed in the 
same way and by the same persons; certainly 
no rule was given respecting this point which 
should be binding in all places and at all times. 
The apostles never imposed teachers upon any 
church, but left to the churches the enjoyment 
of the right belonging to them of choosing their 
own teachers. This right of choosing their of- 
ficers was sometimes exercised by the churches 
— e. g., Acts, vi. 2, 3, 5 ; 2 Cor. viii. 19; and 
sometimes they left it to the apostles, or persons 
commissioned by them, to whom was committed 
the care of the public affairs of the church — e. 
g., 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. i. 5, seq. 

But all these teachers and overseers, appoint- 
ed either by the churches or their rulers and re- 
presentatives, were regarded in the New Testa- 
ment as appointed by God, or the Holy Ghost, 
or Christ — e. g., Acts, xx. 28; Col. iv. 17; be- 
cause their consecration took place on his autho- 
rity, and according to his will. It is common 
to denominate the naming and consecration of 
any one to the office of teaching, his calling (vo- 
catio), because jnp and xaXelv are used in the 
scriptures with respect to the designation of 
prophets and other teachers, and the divi ae com- 
missions entrusted to them. And this calling, 
even in application to the teachers of religion at 
the present day, may be denominated divine, so 
far as it is accordant with the divine will, and 
with the order which God has established; in 
the same way as the institution of government 
is called divine, Romans, xiii. 1. At the present 
time, however, this calling is never immediately 
from Gv/d. And every teacher may be sure that 



he has a divine call (i. e., one in accordance 
with the divine will) when in a regular manner 
he has received a commission to his office from 
those who have the right to induct him, and 
after careful examination, in the presence of 
God, has found that he can hope to discharge 
its duties with the divine approbation. The 
characteristics of a teacher who is acceptable to 
God and to Christ are briefly enumerated, 1 
Tim. iii. 2—7; 2 Tim. ii. 24 ; Titus, i. 5—9; 
1 Pet. v. 2, seq. ; and by these each one may 
examine himself. 

That a teacher of religion should be solemnly 
consecrated to his office, or ordained, is a regula- 
tion which is indeed useful both to the teacher 
himself and to the church ; but, in itself consi- 
dered, it is not a matter juris divini ; it is no- 
where expressly commanded by God, and con- 
tributes nothing, considered as an external cere- 
mony, to efficiency and activity in the sacred 
office. Luther himself pronounced ordination 
not to be necessary, and said that a rightful call- 
ing is sufficient to make any one a rightful 
teacher, and this is the consecration of God. 
And this is very true; for the right to teach 
does not properly depend upon ordination, but 
upon vocation. On protestant principles, the 
ordination of a teacher is nothing else than a 
public approval and confirmation of his calling 
to the office of teaching; so that thenceforward 
he may begin his work, and enjoy his rights. 
Morus, p. 282, n. 3. 

The act which is now called ordination, and 
which is still retained in the protestant church, 
is something very different from ordination ac- 
cording to the use of the ancient church, and the 
old ecclesiastical Latinity. Ordinatio was there 
the same as zupotoviu, and was taken from mili- 
tary life among the Romans, like the word or- 
dines ,- for Christians were called milites Christi. 
It was therefore synonymous with constitution 
constituere ad munus publicum, and was the same 
with vocare. But afterwards they made a sepa- 
rate order of the clergy, and allowed them en- 
tirely peculiar privileges, and an ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction, and then called them ordo, in the 
same sense in which the Roman senate is called 
ordo, ordo senatorius, with which it was com- 
pared ; and when any one was received into 
this order by special consecration, he was said 
ordinari. 

The right of ordaining, according to protest- 
ant principles, is not confined to particular per- 
sons — e. g., bishops; but it can be performed 
by any one who is commissioned to do it by the 
church, or by their functionaries and representa- 
tives. The imposition of hands in the induction 
of teachers into office is mentioned — e. g., 1 Tim. 
iv. 14 ; Acts, xiii. 3 ; and is a ceremony bor- 
rowed from the Jewish church, where it was 
practised with regard to all to whom any office 



478 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



was given, to whom anything was promised, or 
for whom any blessing was implored from God, 
as a sign of blessing, invocation, &c. — symbo- 
lum collationis. 

There is one practice in the protestant church 
with reference to this subject which is a real 
remnant of popery — viz., that an ordained per- 
son may still teach and administer the sacra- 
ments, even when he no longer properly fills an 
office as a teacher of religion, as if ordination 
put a character indelebiJis upon a person; while 
the truth is, that the permission and the right to 
discharge these duties depend upon a person's 
vocation to the sacred office, and not upon his 
ordination. In this respect, therefore, the prac- 
tice of the protestant church is inconsistent with 
its theory, and many evil consequences are the 
result. 

(2) Of the rights of Christian teachers. 

First. As to the rights of teachers, they have, 
merely as teachers, no other than to instruct and 
counsel that part of the church entrusted to their 
care, to perform the services of public worship, 
and in return to expect their maintenance from 
the church ; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3 ; Acts, xx. 23 ; 1 Cor. 
ix. 6 — 14. The church and the government may, 
however, if they see it to be best, confer still 
other rights, privileges, and immunities upon 
teachers. 

Note. — As to the manner in which the church 
shall be governed, and by what sort of persons, 
and how instruction shall be provided for, there 
are no precepts given in the Bible. Properly, 
all Christians have a right to teach — every fa- 
ther his own family; and even to administer the 
sacraments, as even Tertullian truly observes. 
There is, therefore, truly a /us laicorum sacerdo- 
tale, as Grotius, Salmasius, Bohmer, and Spener 
have maintained. Even among the Jews the 
teachers of the people were not priests, but lay- 
men ; and any one who had proper qualifications 
might teach in the synagogue or in the temple. 
Among the ancient Israelites the prophets were 
commonly not from the order of the priesthood, 
but for the most part from other tribes, classes, 
and orders of the people. But for the sake of 
good order, the business of teaching and of per- 
forming the services of public worship must ne- 
cessarily be entrusted to some particular persons; 
otherwise irregularities and abuses are inevita- 
ble; as may be seen from the example of some 
sects which allow every one to teach, I Cor. xii. 

Secondly. It was not long, however, before 
other rights and privileges were conferred upon 
the teachers of the Christian church ; partly such 
as had belonged to the Jewish priests (with whom 
Christian teachers were compared) and even to 
the heathen priests within the Roman empire, 
and partly such as were given to the extraordi- 
nary teachers in the first Christian church, and 
especially to the apostles. To these extraordi- 



nary teachers Christ promised extraordinary 
gifts of the Spirit, and many of their peculiar 
privileges and rights were founded upon these 
gifts, and could not be claimed by their succes- 
sors, to whom these gifts were not imparted. 

Among these is especially the office or the 
power of the keys, (potest as clavium.) This in- 
cludes the power of forgiving or not forgiving 
sins, like what is common in the protestant 
church at confessions, or at the preparation for 
the Lord's Supper; (against which there is no- 
thing to be objected, if it is understood that this 
absolution is not collativa, but merely declaraiiva 
or hypothetica ;) and also plenipotentiary power, 
either to exclude any one from church fellow- 
ship, or to receive him again ; so that the entire 
administration of church discipline is called offi- 
cium clavium. Vide Morus, p. 286 — 288. 

But with'regard to this there are more mis- 
takes than one which need to be answered. 

(a) In all the passages of the New Testa- 
ment which are appealed to in behalf of the 
power of the keys, the apostles only — the extra- 
ordinary teachers of the church — are spoken of. 

(b) In the passages Matt. xvi. 19 and xviii. 
18, nothing is said about forgiving or not for- 
giving sins, but about binding and loosing, 
which in such a connexion always mean, in the 
Syriac, Chaldaic, and the Rabbinical writers, 
to forbid and to allow. Cf. Lightfoot and Wet- 
stein on these texts. The meaning is — " You, 
as my ambassadors, shall have power in the 
Christian church (xxdi; fiaaCknas tZ*v ovpavuv) 
to make regulations and to give precepts, to 
allow and to forbid ; and God will approve these 
your appointments, and they shall be regarded 
by men as if they were from God." For the 
apostles had special gifts of the Spirit, and 
were the ambassadors of God and of Christ. 
The doctrine of the apostles should therefore be 
to all Christians the rule of what they should 
do and what they should leave undone. The 
same is taught in other words, Matt, xviii. 18. 
This is somewhat differently explained by Mo- 
ms, p. 284, 287. 

(c) In John, xx. 23, Christ gives to his apos- 
tles, as ambassadors of God, full power to for- 
give sins, or to withhold forgiveness. The rea- 
son of this is to be found in the gifts of the 
Spirit promised ver. 22. The apostles did not 
indeed become omniscient and infallible by the 
possession of these extraordinary gifts ; but they 
received power to free men from certain evils, 
which were regarded as punishments of sin, 
especially from sicknesses ; and it is this power 
which seems to be here spoken of, and therefore 
not so much ds remissione peccatorum verbali, 
(as theologians call it,) as de remissione reali. 
Thus the healing of the lame man, Matt. ix. 6, 
is derived from the power which the Messiafc 
possessed of forodvingp sins. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 479 



(d) The right to receive any one into the fel- 
lowship of the church, or to exclude him from 
it, did not belong to the apostles or to other 
teachers exclusively. Nor did the apostles ever 
exercise it, or claim it for themselves ; but they 
left the exercise of it to the churches. Vide 
1 Cor. v. 13 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6—10. That the church 
not only have the right, but are under obliga- 
tion, to provide for the support of their doctrine 
and constitution, and to see to it that nothing is 
done contrary to them, is indeed unquestionable. 
And this is the foundation of Christian disci- 
pline — i. e., of all those public regulations and 
appointments by which the Christian doctrine 
and constitution, and a correspondent demean- 
our in the members of the church, are promoted 
and preserved. And this is according to scrip- 
ture. But respecting the manner in which 
Christian churches shall administer this disci- 
pline, no general rules are given. This must 
depend upon the situation and circumstances of 
each particular church. The church may allow 
this right to be exercised by some particular 
persons — e. g., by its teachers; but these in 
such a case do not possess this right in and of 
themselves, but in the name of the church and 
as its representatives. In the Augsburg Con- 
fession and the Apology there is a particular 
chapter on the power of the church as exercised 
through its teachers. But many protestant teach- 
ers are dissatisfied with having their power 
limited to mere teaching and counselling. It is 
moreover a maxim in the protestant church, that 
church discipline should not have the form and 
effect of civil punishments. Vide Moms, p. 
285, s. 8. 

If therefore the phrase, the power of the keys, 
is to be retained, and this power is to be consi- 
dered as belonging to the office of teaching, it 
must be understood to denote the right and duty 
of the teacher earnestly to exhibit before the 
impenitent and unconverted the consequences 
of their sins, the divine punishments ; to ad- 
monish them, to counsel and exhort them to re- 
pentance ; and, on the contrary, to comfort and 
console the penitent, and to convince them, with 
reasons drawn from the Christian system, of 
the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of their 
sins. This right is derived from the very object 
of their office, and cannot be denied. Cf. the 
texts relating to this subject, as cited by Morus, 
p. 283, n. 2, and p. 287, No. 2. And to these 
points are the rights and duties of teachers 
limited, according to the principles of the pro- 
testant church. 

Note 1. — The more extended investigation of 
the doctrines of church government, of the 
primacy, of the rights of the church and its 
teachers, the relation of the church to the state, 
&c, which were formerly introduced into the 
theological systems, belong rather to canon law 



or to church history. It will be sufficient here 
to make this one additional remark, that the 
uniting of persons in an ecclesiastical society 
produces no alterations in their lawful, civil, 
and domestic relations. Vide 1 Cor. vii. 20 — 24. 
The church is not a society which is opposed 
to the state; it rather contributes to advance 
the good ends of civil society. Hence the mem- 
bers of the church are always directed to yield 
the most perfect obedience to the government. 
Vide Luke, xx. 25; Rom. xiii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
13 — 17. The true Christian should not indeed 
conform to the world (the great body of unre- 
newed men), and ought to keep himself unspot- 
ted from the world ; still he should not, of his 
own accord, relinquish his worldly station and 
calling, so far as it is not sinful. 

[Note 2. — On the general subject of this arti- 
cle, cf. Hahn, s. 613, ff. Neander, Kircheng. 
i. b. 1 Abth. s. 346. Bretschneider, b. ii. s. 
785, ff.— Tr.] 



ARTICLE XIV. 

OF THE TWO SACRAMENTS— BAPTISM AND 
THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

SECTION CXXXVII. 

OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL. 

I. Different uses of the term " Sacramentum." 
(1) In the earliest times of the church. Even 
Tertullian employed the term sacramentum with 
reference to Baptism and the Lord's Supper (sa- 
cramentum aquae et eucharistac), and many of the 
Latin teachers after him. But neither Tertullian 
nor the other ancient fathers employ it exclu- 
sively with reference to these ; but they were 
accustomed also to apply it to other things, to 
such especially as they elsewhere called myste- 
ria. Hence we find that in Tertallian the 
terms mysterium and sacramentum are used to 
denote the whole Christian religion and its par- 
ticular doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity, 
of the Incarnation of Christ, &c, are called al- 
ternately mysterium and sacramentum. The 
same is true of all the rites and ceremonies 
practised by Christians, so far as they are the 
types of spiritual things, and have a special sig- 
nificancy, or a secret sense, or are kept private. 
But from whence is this use of sacramentum 
derived? Not from the ancient Latin significa- 
tions of this word, according to which it denotes 
the military oath, or a sum of money deposited, 
but from the ancient Latin versions of the Bible 
— e. g., the Vulgate. In these the Greek ^vcr- 
tfywv is frequently rendered by the word sacro> 
mentum. And since this Greek term was used 



480 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 



respecting all secret and unknown things, and 
designated the higher religious truths, the secret 
sense of a thing, &c. (vide Introduction, s. 6), 
the term sacramentum was employed in ecclesi- 
astical Latinity in all these senses. And it 
was adopted the more willingly by the fathers, 
because they were accustomed to compare the 
doctrines and rites of Christianity with the doc- 
trines and ceremonies of the pagan mysteries, 
in order to secure for them a higher regard and 
authority among the heathen. The texts of the 
Vulgate on which this use is founded are the 
following — viz., Dan. ii. 18, 30, where Ne- 
buchadnezzar's unknown dream is called sacra- 
mentum. Tob. xii. 6, 7 ; B. of Wisdom, ii. 22 ; 
Ephes. iii. 3, 9, where it stands for the Chris- 
tian system, and its particular doctrines. Ephes. 
v. 32 ; Rev. i. 20 ; xvii. 7, &c. The fathers now 
called everything standing in any relation to 
religion, sacramentum, and extended it espe- 
cially to all religious rites which have a secret 
sense or anything symbolical, and which are 
the external and sensible signs of certain spiri- 
tual things not cognizable by the senses. Re- 
specting the meaning of this term, cf. G. J. 
Vossius, Disp. xx. de Baptismo ; Amst. 1648. 
Gesner, Thesaur. Lat. h. v. Windorf, Index 
Latin. Tertull. t. vi. p. 500. The primary 
sense, therefore, of the term sacramentum, is, 
as Morus justly observes, sacrum signum, or 
significaiio ret sacrse. 

(2) The rites of baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per have always been justly regarded in the 
Christian church as the most important acts of 
religious service, and as possessing a peculiar, 
mystical efficacy. But to many other usages 
which have gradually become prevalent in the 
church, and which were not instituted by 
Christ himself, a great significance and effi- 
cacy was attributed ; and they were supposed 
to contain deep religious mysteries. To all 
these the term sacramentum was applied, in the 
sense in which it was used by Augustine — viz., 
Sacramentum est visible signum ret sacrse, sive 
rei divinse invisibilis. In this way all the rites 
of the church might be reckoned as belonging 
to the sacraments, and this was actually done. 

Now after the twelfth century the schoolmen 
began to contend about the number of the sa- 
craments, and at length most of them settled 
upon seven (as a sacred number), which they 
regarded as the most important and efficacious, 
and to which, by way of eminence, they gave 
the name sacramentu These were first dis- 
tinctly stated by Petei of Lombardy, in the 
twelfth century, as baptism, the Lord's Supper, 
confirmation, (conjirmatio catecumenoruni) , ordi- 
nation, extreme unction, auricular confession (sa- 
cramentum poenitentise') , and wtdlock. He was 
followed in this by most of the teachers in the 



Romish church, and they endeavoured to sup 
port their opinion even from the Bible. This 
doctrine was not, however, publicly acknow- 
ledged until the Council at Trent, in the six- 
teenth century. It must be acknowledged that 
this selection does not reflect much credit upon 
the sagacity of the one who made it; and it 
proved the occasion of a great accumulation of 
ceremonies, and confirmed the people in the de- 
lusion that Christianity consists essentially in 
ecclesiastical rites, and that those invented by 
men have equal authority with baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, which depend upon divine ap- 
pointment, and possess equal power and effi- 
cacy. 

(3) These perversions induced the protestant 
theologians of the sixteenth century, especially 
those of the Lutheran church, to use the word 
sacramentum in a more limited sense than that 
in which it had been previously taken, and so 
to determine its meaning that it should no more 
include all the rites which had been formerly 
denominated sacramenta, but merely baptism 
and the Lord's Supper. Hence the doctrine of 
seven sacraments was publicly established in 
the Romish church by the Council at Trent, in 
opposition to the protestants ; and it was there 
maintained that all the seven were instituted by 
Christ, and were sacraments in the same sense 
with baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is 
however expressly said, in the Apology of the 
Augsburg Confession by Melancthon, that no- 
thing depends upon the use of the word, or 
upon the number, if the thing itself is only 
rightly understood, and human institutions are 
not made of equal authority with those of God. 
Nemo vir prudens de nomine et numero rixabitur. 
Cf. Morus, p. 276, s. 5. 

The Lutheran theologians have adhered close- 
ly to the use of this word in the narrower sense 
adopted in the sixteenth century. But the re- 
formed theologians have often used it in the 
wider sense, after the ancient manner — e. g., 
they frequently call the Levitical ceremonies 
and all the types of the Old Testament, sacra- 
ments. Many among the catholics (Bellarmin, 
and more lately Oberthiir) have expressly al- 
lowed that baptism and the Lord's Supper are 
the most general and important of the sacra- 
ments, and that they therefore approached the 
protestants more nearly than the Council at 
Trent. Oberthiir (in his Idea Bibl. Eccles. Dei, 
vol. ii.) confesses that Christ expressly and 
immediately appointed only two sacraments, 
but insists that he conferred upon the church 
and the priesthood the power to add others. 
The assertion made by some that baptism and 
the Lord's Supper are even in the New Testa- 
ment denominated fivst^pia, is without founda- 
tion. For the oixovbpos ixvstrjptiov ®tov (1 Cor 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 481 



iv. 1), is one who teaches the doctrines which 
God has revealed to men, and of which they 
were before ignorant. Vide chap. ii. 7. 

JL Development of the idea which, is connected in 
the Lutheran church with the term " Sacra- 
ment ,•" and the marks by which Sacraments are 
distinguished from other ceremonies. 

(1) By the word sacraments is understood, in 
the Lutheran church, those religious rites and 
ceremonies which God himself has instituted in 
the holy scriptures, by which certain spiritual 
blessings are represented and actually communi- 
cated. Luther defined a sacrament, in this nar- 
rower sense, as follows : — It is an observance 
appointed by God, in which one makes use of a 
visible thing, which has the divine word of com- 
mand and of promise. Cf. Morus, p. 274, s. 2, 
n. 1. 

The essential characteristics of a sacrament 
are therefore the following — viz., 

(a) Sacraments are external religious acts. 

(b) They are among those acts which are po- 
sitively instituted — i. e., they are such as stand 
in no essential connexion, from their internal 
nature, with religion and the welfare of men, 
(like prayer, for example.) And all the reli- 
gious acts which have these two characteristics 
are called ceremonies. 

(c) They are instituted and appointed by God 
himself. 

(e?) They serve not only to exhibit or repre- 
sent to the senses the spiritual blessings which 
flow from God and Christ, but actually to com- 
municate them. 

In every sacrament, therefore, there are two 
parts;— the visible thing {materia, or pes terres- 
tris), which affects the senses, as the bread, 
wine, and water; and the invisible thing (res, 
or materia cuelestis), which is typified and im- 
parted by the external sign. But respecting 
the manner in which the sacraments exert their 
power and produce their effect, protestant theo- 
logians have not agreed ; nor have even the Lu- 
theran theologians agreed among themselves. 
In this point, however, they coincide, that the 
sacraments do not exert a mechanical or miracu- 
lous power, as some catholics and enthusiasts 
have maintained ; for in that case they must act 
irresistibly ; but some of them contend that they 
have a physical power, or a pow T er analogous to 
physical (physico-analogam vim) ; while others 
say, that they have merely a moral effect. It 
is the same here as in the controversy respect- 
ing the power and efficacy of the divine word. 
These religious services stand in the most inti- 
mate connexion with the essential doctrines of 
the Christian system, and they can in themselves 
produce no effect upon those who have no 
knowledge of these doctrines, or no conviction 
of their truth— i. e., no faith. The truths of 
61 



religion which are herein represented, and 
which should be deduced from these ceremo- 
nies, produce their effect in the same way (or 
rather the Holy Ghost produces through them 
an effect in the same way) upon the heart cf 
man, as they are accustomed in other cases to 
do, when they are heard, read, &c. ; rnly in 
these sacraments they are not taught by w ords, 
but in different ways are rendered obvious to 
the senses. All which has been before said 
respecting the operations of grace through the 
Word of God, s. 129, seq., is therefore equally 
applicable to this subject. Cf. especially with 
reference to the Biblical doctrine, srl31. Me- 
lancthon, therefore, well observed in the Augs- 
burg Confession, Art. vii., that Augustine truly 
said, Sacramentum esse verbum visibile ; for, he 
adds, ritus oculis accipitur (ut moveat corda), et 
est quasi pictura verbi, idem signifcans quod ver- 
bum. Now in the same way in which God ex- 
erts his power through the word, when it is 
heard or read, in the very same way does he 
act through the Word (the truth), when in 
other ways and by external rites it is repre- 
sented to the senses. 

(2) Inferences from this representation of the 
Lutheran theologians. From this limitation of 
the idea of sacramentum it follows that only 
baptism and the Lord's Supper can properly be 
regarded as sacraments. For the characteristics 
of the sacraments have been so settled that they 
can all apply only to these two; and other ce- 
remonies are excluded from the number. By 
these distinctions are excluded, 

(g) The five other sacraments of the Romish 
church, because the third and fourth of the cha- 
racteristics above mentioned do not belong to 
them ; or at least one or the other of these two 
characteristics is wanting. Morus shews this 
particularly with regard to each one of the five 
Romish sacraments, p. 275, s. 4, in the Note. 

(b) The washing of feet (pedilavium), which 
was regarded by some as a religious rite ap- 
pointed for all the members of the Christian 
church in all ages, because Christ washed his 
disciples' feet, (John, xiii. 5.) and because it 
appears from 1 Tim. v. 10. that this rite was 
practised in the first Christian church. But 
this act was symbolical, and Christ designed by 
it to inculcate upon his disciples, after the ori- 
ental manner, the duty of Christian love, con- 
descension, and readiness to serve others. 
Vide ver. 12, seq. It was never appointed by 
the apostles as a rule for all Christians in all 
ages. By degrees, as customs altered, ami 
another mode of thinking prevailed, it fell into 
disuse in most of the Western churches. Still 
it was long retained in the Eastern churches, 
and in some of them is common to this day. 
Even in the W T est, it has been revived by some 
of the smaller churches — e. g., by a part of the 
2S 



482 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Mennonites ; and it is now practised by some, 
though not all, belonging to the society of 
United Brethren. They, however, do not in- 
sist that it is an essential Christian rite, which 
must be observed by all Christians, and which 
should again be introduced into all Christian 
churches, after it has now fallen into disuse; 
but they leave every one to his own judgment 
respecting it. 

(c) The Jewisn religious rites, such as offer- 
ings, sacrifices, &c. For Paul says that they 
did not effect the forgiveness of sin before God, 
although they were instituted by him, Heb. ix. 
9 ; x. 11. So far as they typified spiritual bless- 
ings, (vide s. 90, III. 7,) they might be called 
sacraments in the old sense. 

(d) Especially have circumcision and the 
passover been considered as sacraments, and 
called, by way of distinction, sacrament a Vete- 
ris Testamenti, and compared with baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. But many modern theolo- 
gians have decided that they cannot be called 
sacraments in the sense of the Lutheran church. 
For although they were commanded by God, 
they were attended by no promise of spiritual 
blessings. Circumcision related merely to ex- 
ternal good, the possession of Canaan, the pos- 
terity of Abraham, &c, Gen. xvii., and not to 
the forgiveness of sins, &c. On the contrary, 
it is assigned as the object of baptism, the ini- 
tiatory rite of the Christian religion, to promote 
the circumcision of the heart, or moral improve- 
ment. Vide Col. ii. 11, 12. The passover was 
instituted merely to commemorate the deliver- 
ance of the Jews from Egypt. Still, although 
it is not declared in the scriptures that baptism 
and the Lord's Supper have come into t^e place 
of circumcision and the passover, yet both of 
the latter may be regarded as sacraments, so 
far as they typified spiritual blessings. For it 
was expressly said to Abraham at his circumci- 
sion, that the great promises made to him and 
his posterity should be fulfilled, (Gen. xvii. 
21,) and among these were spiritual blessings. 
And all the offerings and festivals of the Jewish 
religion, and especially these two, which were 
the most solemn, are said in the New Testa- 
ment to have a figurative sense. Vide 1 Cor. 
v. 7; John, xix. 36; and s. 90. Cf. Heilmann, 
Definienda justa sacramentorum notione, in his 
"Opuscula," th. i. s. 433. 

III. The Ohject of Christ in instituting these two 
Sacraments. 
(1) The utility and necessity of religious rites 
may be inferred from the constitution of our na- 
ture. Man is not a mere spirit, but a being com- 
posed of reason and sense. And on this account 
there must be something in religion which will 
appeal to his senses, excite and sustain his de- 
votion, and strengthen his zeal in piety. The 



sensible representation of the truths of religion 
often makes a stronger impression upon men, 
as experience shews, than mere instruction ; be- 
cause their feelings are apt to be more strongly 
excited by anything which appeals to the senses 
than by that which addresses simply the under- 
standing. Hence our religious services cannot 
be merely spiritual. Even ceremonies of human 
appointment have a great effect, and far more 
those which have divine authority, and, like 
baptism and the Lord's Supper, are accompa- 
nied with special promises. 

Religious rites in general contribute much 
also to the support of religion itself; since by 
their means the solemn and public profession 
of religion is renewed, and even children are 
from their youth up accustomed to them, and 
are bound to their observance. A religion with- 
out external religious rites, and without the 
aids of sensible exhibitions of its truths, would 
be as liable to become obsolete, as the different 
systems of philosophy. The truth of this re- 
mark is confirmed by the history of the church. 
In the oriental church, Christianity was indeed 
very early disfigured by many false doctrines; 
but the profession of Christ, and the essentials 
of his religion, still continued, until Moham- 
med and'his adherents succeeded in abolishing 
Christian worship, together with baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. It is therefore very neces- 
sary that these religious rites should be main- 
tained ; and the opponents of Christianity pro- 
ceed very wisely when they endeavour to bring 
them into disuse and contempt. For the doc- 
trines to which they relate must soon share the 
same fate. 

(2) But it is equally important, on the other 
hand, that religion should not be overloaded 
with external rites, and that they should be as 
few as possible; for when they are multiplied 
their effect is weakened, and they are soon re- 
garded with indifference and contempt. This 
is proved by the example of all religions, and 
even of the Christian religion, when it has been 
burdened with ceremonies. Christ endeavoured 
by his doctrine to withdraw men more and more 
from what is external and sensible, and to pro- 
mote internal, spiritual worship, as an affair of 
the heart. Cf. John, iv. 23, 24. Hence he 
appointed but few ceremonies. An additional 
reason for this was, that at the time when Chris- 
tianity was founded, the religious ceremonial 
both of the Jews and of the heathen nations was 
looked upon with coldness, or even with con- 
tempt, by the more cultivated and thinking part 
of the public, on account of the great multipli- 
city of its rites, and the superstition with whicn 
it was attended. Even a great portion of the 
religious Jews at that time felt the burden of 
the Jewish ceremonial law tc be very oppres- 
sive. Cf. Acts, xv. 10; Matthew, xxiii. 4 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 48' 



A new religious institution, therefore, prescrib- 
ing but few, simple, and easy rites, would on 
this very account commend itself to the Jews 
and the heathen. Cf. Matt. ix. 14 — 17. 

Considered in this respect, these two sacra- 
ments of Christ have great advantages. They 
are natural, simple, and universally applicable. 
They are therefore peculiarly appropriate to an 
institution which is designed to be universal. 
It is otherwise with the Jewish ritual, which is 
not adapted to all men, countries, and times. 
Indeed it was not designed by God for all men, 
but only for a particular period, and that for a 
limited time. Christ, however, has not forbid- 
den the introduction of other religious usages; 
for an increase of them may often be indispen- 
sable to the maintenance of united religious 
worship. But he has left this to the discretion 
of his church, which may appoint and modify 
them according to the circumstances. Those, 
however, which Christ has instituted should 
serve as models and patterns, in point of sim- 
plicity, for all other Christian ceremonies. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

SECTION CXXXVIII. 

NAMES, INSTITUTION, AND ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM ; WITH OBSERVATIONS ON JOHN THE 
BAPTIST AND THE JEWISH BAPTISM OF PROSE- 
LYTES. 

I. Names of Baptism in the Bible. 

(1) To f5d7t?M(ji.a, from ^a-riti^uv, which pro- 
perly signifies to immerse, (like the Germ. 
taufen,) to clip in, to wash, (by immersion.) In 
the Syriac and Chaldaic (which Christ used) 
this is denoted by the words, Saa, rtry^, hi22, 
(Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. p. 849, 850.) Hence the 
washing of vessels with water is called p6.7ti!t,6- 
fjiov, Mark, vii. 4. And instead of vl^wtai in 
ver. 3 of the same chapter, we have in ver. 4, 
paTmVcovT'ou.- so also of the washing of hands, 
Luke, xi. 38, seq. (In the New Testament the 
form 6 part* capos is never used for the religious 
rite of baptism, either of John or of Christ; but 
always to fidrt-tcapa.) Hence it is often used 
tropically, (a) For what flows, or is communi- 
cated, to any one in full measure; as in Latin, 
perfundere, imbucre, &c. — e. g., Acts, i. 5. 
(b) For severe sufferings which befal anyone — 
e. g., Matt. xx. 22, 23 ; for these are often com- 
pared with waves which overflow any one; Ps. 
lxix. 2, 3. So among the Latins, fiuctus mi- 
seriae, mergi malis. Hence martyrdom is called 
by the ancients, baptisma sanguinis. In the 



classics, — e. g., in Plato, — a drunken person is 
said to be f3a.7tTca$ecs, vino imbutus, mersus. 

(2) KaSapcafios, John, iii. 25; because by 
washing purification is effected, and baptism 
represents purification from sins, and is design- 
ed to promote this end in the one who is bap- 
tized. Hence Josephus (xviii. 7) employs ix- 
xa&cupsiv in respect to the baptism of John. 
Perhaps, too, 2 Peter, i. 9, (xo&opic/tos twk 
710X0.1 duaprcHiv, coll. Eph. v. 26) belongs in 
this connexion. 

(3) To vSu>p, because baptism was adminis- 
tered with water; John, iii. 5, coll. Acts, x. 47; 
Eph. v. 26, seq. 

(4) Among the church fathers one of the 
oldest names was tycotcoixos, from the instruction 
which the subject of thisTite received in con- 
nexion with his baptism, as Justin the Martyr 
(Apol. i. 61) explains it. The Syriac, too, 
translates rovs a?ta| fw-r'tc&svT'as (Heb. vi. 4), 
those once baptized, which version Michaelis 
follows, though it is a doubtful rendering. Bap- 
tism is moreover called by the church fathers, 
odpaytj) sigillum, (character ChristianiS) %dpcs, 
xdpcaua, evdvfia o.^apacac, x. t. %. 

II. Institution of Baptism, and the principal texts 
relating to it. 
Jesus, even during his life upon the earth, 
required those who wished to become his dis- 
ciples to be baptized by his apostles; John, iii. 
22, coll. ver. 5 of the same chapter, and chapter 
iv. 1, 2. But at that time none but Jews were 
received into his church and baptized ; as was 
the case also with John in his baptism. Shortly 
before his ascension to heaven, he first gave the 
commission to his apostles to admit all {rtdvta 
i^vr) into the Christian church, and to baptize 
them without distinction ; Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20, 
cf. Mark, xvi. 15, 16. They were to be made 
disciples of Jesus Christ, or professors of his 
religion (ua^rjEvnv) in a twofold manner — 
viz., by baptism and by instruction. They were 
to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit — i. e., by baptism they were 
to be obligated to accept and obey the doctrine 
which acknowledges and receives Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit. Whoever, therefore, is bap- 
tized, declares by this rite that he acknowledges 
Father, Son, and Spirit for his God, that he 
will obey his laws, and that he expects protec- 
tion and blessing from him; and God, on the 
other hand, promises and grants to him the en- 
joyment of all the benefits which the gospel of 
Christ enjoins upon us to expect from the Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. For a more full 
explanation of this formula, vide s. 35, I., and 
Morus, p. 275, s. 2, 3. It is the opinion of 
some that Christ did not design in this passage 
so much to prescribe a precise formula, — in 
which case he would rather have said, "Bap- 



484 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



tize ye, and say, I baptize thee in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" — but that he 
merely intended to teach what is the meaning 
and object of this rite. That this command of 
Christ was obeyed by the apostles may be seen 
from the Acts and Epistles. The other import- 
ant passages concerning the object, design, and 
effect of baptism — e. g., John, iii. 5; Titus, iii. 
5; Acts, xxii. 16; Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 3,4; 
Ephes. v. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21, &c, will be ex- 
plained in the following sections. 

III. Origin of Christian Baptism ; the Baptism of 
John, and the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes. 

(1) John baptized before Christ appeared 
publicly as a teacher, and Christ even suffered 
himself to be baptized by him. The baptism 
of John is described, equally with the baptism 
of Christ, as a divine institution, and as per- 
formed under divine authority; John, i. 33, 
(God sent him to baptize,) and Luke, vii. 30, 
where it is called a divine institution (fiovXTj 
&sov), and Matt. xxi. 25, seq. 

(2) But although this is a divine institution, 
we must still seek among the prevailing prac- 
tices and expectations of the Israelites the more 
immediate reason why just this and no other 
form of initiation was then introduced by John 
and Christ. From the passage, John, i. 25, it 
is manifest that the Jews (the Sanhedrim and 
the Pharisees) expected that the Messiah and 
his herald Elias would baptize. Cf. Lightfoot 
on this text. And so, many even among the 
learned (the Pharisees and Sadducees) suffered 
themselves to be baptized by John (Matt. iii. 
7) ; which probably would not have, been the 
case if baptism had been to them a strange and 
unheard of thing. The Israelites, like many 
other nations, had different forms of lustration 
and washings with water, which were clearly 
prescribed by their law, by means of which they 
sanctified, consecrated, and cleansed themselves 
from impurities. Vide Wetstein on Matt. iii. 
6. As, now, the Messiah was to bring about 
a general reformation, and to establish a new 
constitution, into which every one must be so- 
lemnly" initiated, and to which he must be con- 
secrated ; as, moreover, it was the universal 
expectation, according to the prophets, that he 
would cleanse men from their sins, which was 
exactly typified by the washings in the Levi- 
tical law; it does not seem unnatural that just 
this form of initiation should have been expect- 
ed by the Jews, and should, in fact, have been 
chosen by John and Christ, according to divine 
appointment. 

If, now, the baptism of proselytes was custom- 
ary among the Jews at or before the time of 
Christ, many things could be explained still 
more clearly from this circumstance. The Tal- 
mud and its interpreters relate that the prose- 



lytes, as well circumcised, as uncircumcised, 
were initiated by baptism into the worship of 
the one true God, and that this was a symbol 
of purification from sin, and of the renunciation 
of heathenism ; and that they were then consi- 
dered as born again — exactly the expression 
used by Christ (John, iii.) and by Paul (Tit. 
iii.) respecting Christian baptism. Vide s. 
126, II. The Talmudists make this practice 
very ancient, and place it as far back as the 
time of Moses, and even further, (which pro- 
bably is going too far, as their way is.) The 
oldest passage respecting a religious cleansing, 
or sort of baptism, occurs in Jacob's history, 
(Gen. xxxv. 2,) when he puts av/ay the idols 
in his house, and builds an altar to Jehovah. 
This passage may certainly have induced the 
Israelites to adopt this custom. So much is 
certain, that as early as the second century pro- 
selyte baptism must have been very customary; 
since in the Dissertations of Epictetus (ii. 9), 
published by Arrian, ^t^au^ivoi signifies a 
Jewish proselyte, and 7tapai3a7ttio$£u$, one who 
had not sincerely embraced Judaism. Others, 
however, are inclined to think that Christians 
are here meant, and that Epictetus confounded 
them with the Jews. For these reasons, Dantz 
firmly maintained that the baptism of proselytes 
was, as it were, the prelude of the baptism of 
John and of Christ; and he is followed by Mi- 
chaelis, Less, and others. Cf. his treatise de 
antiquitate baptismi initiationis Israel, in Meu- 
schen's N. T. e Talmude illustrato, p. 133, f. 
and Wetstein on Matt. iii. 6. 

There is much for and much against the 
opinion that proselyte baptism was customary in 
the first century, and even earlier, (a) Against. 
There is not found, even to the present time, 
one distinct evidence of it in any writer before, 
at, or shortly after, the time of Christ; not in 
Philo, — not in Josephus, even when he speaks 
of the conversion of the Idumeans, under John 
Hyrkan, to Judaism (xiii. 9), where he simply 
mentions circumcision, — not even in the Chal- 
daic paraphrases. Zeltner firmly opposes to 
Dantz this stubborn silence of the writers near 
the age of Christ, {b) In favour. The unani- 
mous testimony of all the Rabbins, — the univer- 
sality of this practice among the Jews of the 
second century, since it can scarcely be thought 
that they would have borrowed it from the 
Christians, who were so hated and despised by 
them, — the striking similarity of the Jewish ex- 
pressions, concerning the baptism of proselytes, 
with those which occur in the New Testament 
respecting the Christian rite (regeneratio), — also 
the circumstance that Josephus, in his account 
of John the Baptist, does not express the least 
surprise at this practice as a new and unwonted 
ceremony. This last argument, however, is 
invalidated by the remark, that it is known to 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 4S5 



have been expected that the precursor of the 
Messiah would baptize. Besides, it appears 
that the baptism of John did excite among the 
Jews some degree of surprise. This is seen 
from the question, ivhy baptizest thou then? and 
from his being called the Baptist. Ziegler has 
lately maintained, with very probable reasons, 
that the antiquity of the Jewish baptism of pro- 
selytes ascends beyond the origin of Christian- 
ity. Cf. his Theological Essays, part ii. (Got- 
tingen, 1804,) Num. 3, " Concerning the Bap- 
tism of John as the unaltered application of the 
Jewish Baptism of Proselytes, and concerning 
the Baptism of Christ as the continuation of that 
of John." But although much may be advanced 
in support of this opinion, it cannot be relied 
upon with certainty, since it is entirely destitute 
of clear contemporary evidence. 

IV. Was the Baptism of John different from 
Christian Baptism ? 

Many theologians of the Romish church for- 
merly maintained that there is a difference, but 
protestants usually take the opposite side, al- 
though some, especially the more modern, have 
again adopted the former opinion. The follow- 
ing observations may serve to settle the mat- 
ter:— 

(1) The object of John's baptism was the same 
with that of Christian ,• and from this it may be 
at once concluded that it did not differ essen- 
tially from the latter. John exhorted the per- 
sons baptized by him to repentance (/xstdvoia) 
and to faith in the Messiah who was shortly to 
appear, and made these duties obligatory upon 
them by this rite, Matt. iii. 11; Luke, iii. ; 
Mark, i. ; John, i. ; Acts, ii. 38. And as soon 
as Jesus publicly appeared, John asserted in the 
most forcible manner that he was the Messiah, 
and so required of all whom he had then or be- 
fore baptized, that they should believe in Jesus 
as the Messiah. Now in Christian baptism, 
repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah are 
likewise the principal things which are required 
on the part of the subjects of this rite. 

(2) The practice of the first Christian church 
confirms the point that the baptism of John was 
considered essentially the same with Christian 
baptism. For those who acknowledged that 
they had professed, by the baptism of John, to 
believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in con- 
sequence of this had become in fact his disci- 
ples, and had believed in him, were not, in a 
single instance, baptized again into Christ, be- 
cause this was considered as having been already 
done. Hence we do not find that any apostle or 
any other disciple of Jesus was the second time 
baptized; not even that Apollos mentioned in 
Acts, xviii. 25, because he had before believed 
in Jesus as Christ, although he had received 
only the baptism of John. 



(3) But all those disciples of John who had 
not before acknowledged this truth, and had re- 
ceived the baptism of John or his successors in 
an entirely different signification, were properly 
considered at the time of the apostles as not be- 
ing baptizpd, or as wrongly b-'.ptized, and all 
such were therefore required to be baptized ex- 
pressly into Christ as the Messiah. This was 
the case with the Jews, who, according to Acts, 
ii. 41, were baptized into Jesus, among whom 
were many whom John had baptized, but who 
had not then recognised Jesus as the Messiah, 
and had even taken part in his crucifixion. This 
was likewise the case with those persons whom 
Paul (Acts, xix. 1 — 5) permitted to be baptized 
at Ephesus, although they had already received 
the baptism of John. There is in this place 
nothing that needs to be artificially explained. 
The meaning is, "That when they heard from 
Paul that it was essential to baptism that one 
should believe in Jesus as the Lord and Christ, 
(which they hitherto had not done, since the 
disciples of John who baptized thern had said 
nothing to them about it,) they were then will- 
ing to suffer themselves to he solemnly obli- 
gated by baptism to the acknowledgment of 
Jesus." Vide Bengel's Gnomon, ad h. 1. and 
Semler, Diss, ad Acts, xix. 1, seq. This was 
the more necessary at that time, as many of the 
disciples of John had entirely separated them- 
selves from the Christians. These false disci- 
ples of John still continued to practise John's 
baptism into the approaching Messiah, but de- 
nied that Jesus was the Messiah. Even to the 
present day there are remnants of this sect in 
Syria and Arabia. Vide Norberg, Von der Re- 
ligion und Sprache der Zabier, and AValch, De 
Sabceis, in the Comment. Soc. Gott. 1780 and 
1781. There is much directed against the false 
disciples of John in the accounts given by the 
Evangelists respecting John the Baptist. Vide 
Storr, Ueber den Zweck der evang. Gesch. und 
der Briefe Johannis ; Tilbingen, 1786, 8vo; 2d 
ed. 1809. There is nothing therefore in the 
passages Acts ii. and xix. which favours the 
doctrine that those who had been baptized by 
John were required to be re-baptized, in order 
to admission into the church of Christ. 

SECTION CXXXIX. 

HOW AND BY WHOM BAPTISM IS TO BE ADMINIS- 
TERED J AND RESPECTING THE OPTIONAL AND 
UNESSENTIAL THINGS ATTENDING THE OBSERV- 
ANCE OF THTS RITE. 

I. Concerning Immersion, Affusion, and Sprinkling 
with Water. 

(1) It is certain that in Christian baptism, 
as in the baptism of John, only water was used 
by Christ and his apostles. Vide John, iii 5 ; 
2s2 



486 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Ephes. v. 26. But after baptism in itself con- 
sidered, and simply as an opus operatum, came 
to be regarded as essential to salvation, the 
question was started, Whether, in the want of 
water, baptism could be performed with any 
other material — e. g., wine, milk, or sand ? The 
question must be answered in the negative, 
since to do this would be contrary to the insti- 
tution of Christ. For any one to be prevented 
necessarily from being baptized does not subject 
him to condemnation, but only the wilful and 
criminal refusal of this rite. 

(2) Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the 
institution of Christ, and to the practice of the 
apostolical church, and so even John baptized, 
and immersion remained common for a long 
time after ; except that in the third century, or 
perhaps earlier, the baptism of the sick (bap- 
tisma clinicorum) was performed by sprinkling 
or affusion. Still some would not acknowledge 
this to be true baptism, and controversy arose 
concerning it, so unheard of was it at that time 
to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian first 
defended baptism by sprinkling, when necessity 
called for it, but cautiously and with much limi- 
tation. By degrees, however, this mode of bap- 
tism became more customary, probably because 
it was found more convenient; especially was 
this the case after the seventh century, and in 
the Western church, but it did not become uni- 
versal until the commencement of the fourteenth 
century. Yet Thomas Aquinas had approved 
and promoted this innovation more than a hun- 
dred years before. In the Greek and Eastern 
church they still held to immersion. It would 
have been better to have adhered generally to 
the ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin 
allowed. VideStorr, Doct. Christ. Pars theoret., 
p. 291. If it is asked, however, if immersion 
is so essential that one who has been only 
sprinkled is not to be considered as properly a 
baptized person, it may be answered, No ! No- 
thing more is essential to the external part of 
baptism than that water be used, (Acts, x. 47 ; 
John, iii. 5,) and that the subject, by the solemn 
use of this rite, be consecrated to Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit, and be pledged to obey the 
Christian doctrine, Matt, xxviii. 19. The wash- 
ing with water is considered as the symbol of 
the purification of sins, and this can be signified 
as well by affusion as by immersion. Hence, 
even in affusion, the external significancy of the 
rite is retained. And this is the reason why 
many in the Western church, and even in the 
protestant church, have contended that this rite 
should be administered, not per adspersionem, 
but per largiorem aquae affusionem. 

(3) There is no command given concerning 
the question, whether immersion or affusion 
should be performed only once, or more than 
once; this therefore is in itself optional. In 



the Greek church we find the threefold immer- 
sion earlier and more prevalent than in the La- 
tin; whence the Greeks objected to the Latins. 
Basilius and Hieronymus say that this was 
practised in conformity with an ancient tradi- 
tion ; and if it was not common in the first 
church, perhaps the controversies with the 
Antitrinitarians in the third century might have 
given the first occasion for it. In the African 
church it was already common in the times of 
Tertullian and Cyprian, and in the apostolical 
constitutions it was so ordained. At the fourth 
church council at Toledo, in the year 633, this 
threefold immersion was first established by 
ecclesiastical authority in the Latin church, in 
opposition to the Arians. 

(4) It is also optional whether the head, the 
forehead, or the breast, be wet with the water ; 
and in this respect the one who administers this 
sacrament must govern himself according to the 
usages of his own particular church. 

II. On the use of Formulas in Baptism. 

The formulas used in administering baptism 
have always been very different. In the Greek 
church it is still common to say, as formerly, 
Baptizetur hie, or hsec (servus, or serva Dei) in 
nomine, &c. In the Latin church the subject is 
addressed, I baptize thee in the name, &c. The 
formula adopted by some of baptizing in the 
name " of God the Father, Goo the Son, and God 
the Holy Ghost,'''' is liable to be misunderstood, 
as it might be interpreted to mean that there are 
three gods. It has appeared strange to some 
that we find in the New Testament no passage 
from which it plainly appears that the words 
used Matt, xxviii., in the name of the Father, 
&c, were used in the apostolical church. For 
we always find only, ttj Xptoror or 'Irjaovv — sts 
ovoy,a Kvpiov or 'IrjGov — e. g., Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. 
iii. 27 ; Acts, ii. 38 ; x. 48 ; xix. 5. The opi- 
nions on this subject are not unanimous. (1) 
We might say, with some, that although the 
formula in Matthew xxviii. were not used in 
the apostolical church, but it was merely said 
in the name of Jesus — i. e., into the profession 
of Christ and his doctrine — yet this was entirely 
the same with the other, because it compre- 
hended the profession of the Father and of the 
Holy Spirit, since whoever was baptized into 
Jesus by this act professed his belief in the 
whole doctrine of Christ, and therefore in that 
which he taught concerning the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit. Basilius endeavoured to ex- 
plain the thing in this way. (2) Others (and 
among the rest, Facundus Hermianensis, De 
Tribus Capit. i. 3) are of opinion that it does 
not follow fiom these places that they did not 
fully employ the prescribed formulas in bap- 
tism ; but that Christian baptism was so named 
in distinction from the baptism of John, and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 487 



from the Jewish proselyte baptism, since one 
who had received this proselyte baptism, or had 
wrongly understood that of John, was not bap- 
tized into Christ. This can be reconciled very 
well, at least with Acts, xix. 5, and with some 
other places. Vide s. 138, II. But in addition 
to these there is a third reason. (3) In the an- 
cient Christian church immediately after the 
time of the apostles, the words prescribed by 
Christ at the establishment of this rite were cer- 
tainly used, (Just. M. Ap. 1, 80.) It may there- 
fore be rightly inferred that it was the same at 
the time of the apostles ; and that it is right and 
proper to continue in this use. It is not, how- 
ever, forbidden to unite with this other formulas 
which are suitable, and which serve to explain 
the design of this rite, and to excite pious feel- 
ings. The teacher will of course govern him- 
self in this matter according to the circumstances, 
the constitution, and usages of the particular 
church to which he may belong. 

III. By whom is Baptism to be administered? 

In ordinary cases, certainly by the teachers 
of religion : for it is their appropriate business 
and calling to lead disciples to Christ, (jiafrj- 
tsvsiv,) and this duty is also committed to them 
by the church and government. We find, there- 
fore, that baptism in the apostolical church was 
always administered by the teachers. Vide 
John, iv. 2; Acts, x. 48 ; 1 Cor. i. 16. But 
although this ^o^tstW is the appropriate busi- 
ness of teachers, still they have no exclusive 
right to it, as this is nowhere given to them in 
the New Testament. But in case of necessity, 
and when no teachers can be obtained, baptism 
may be administered by any Christian, and is 
valid if it is performed according to the institu- 
tion of Christ. Vide s. 136, II. 2. This has 
been the doctrine and practice which has univer- 
sally prevailed in the church. 

IV. How far a knowledge of Christian Doctrines is 
essential in the subjects of Baptism. 
This knowledge must certainly be presup- 
posed in adults before they can be baptized. For 
how could they solemnly profess, as they do in 
baptism, to believe, and pledge themselves to 
obey, a doctrine respecting which they were 
wholly ignorant] We find, therefore, even in 
the writings of the New Testament, that the 
candidates for baptism were previously instruct- 
ed. But this instruction was by no means par- 
ticular; it was confined to the main, funda- 
mental truths of Christianity ; the doctrine of one 
God; the principal articles respecting Christ; 
that he is the Messiah ; and that through him 
we receive forgiveness from God ; also concern- 
ing the Holy Spirit promised to Christians, and 
the indispensable necessity of repentance and 
holiness : these are the principal truths in which 



the candidates for baptism were briefly instruct- 
ed. W~hen they were sufficiently acquainted with 
these truths, and had professed them from the 
heart, they were allowed baptism, and received af- 
terwards more complete instruction both in these 
and the other Christian doctrines. Cf. Acts, n. 
41; viii. 12, 36, seq.; ix. 17, 18 ; x. 34—48, where 
in' the words of Peter we have an example of 
the instruction commonly given before baptism. 
Cf. Heb. vi. 1, seq. In the great addition of 
new converts in the first period of Christianity, 
this preparatory instruction could not possibly 
be very long or particular, especially as the 
teachers of religion were yet few. Accordingly, 
the confessions of faith to be made in baptism 
were at first very short and simple; such, for 
example, was the symbolum apostolicum, so call- 
ed ; but this was gradually enlarged by the ad- 
dition of new distinctons, by which the orthodox 
endeavoured to distinguish themselves from he- 
retics. The instruction of catechumens and the 
time of probation preceding baptism were by 
degrees increased and prolonged ; and for this 
there was good reason. For as the number of 
Christian proselytes constantly increased, and 
multitudes were pressing into the church, 
greater caution became necessary in admitting 
them. This led to the appointment of fixed 
periods for the probation of new converts before 
baptism. 

V. Usages incidental to Baptism, but not essential 
to Us Validity. 

Many of these are very ancient, but they may 
all be dispensed with without affecting the vali- 
dity of Christian baptism, because they are not 
commanded by Christ. In Christian archaeo- 
logy and church history they are more fully ex- 
hibited than they can be here. We mention 
only some of those which are still common 
among us. 

(1) The sign of the cross appears to have 
been first introduced in connexion with baptism 
in the fourth century, and is intended to be a 
solemn memorial of the death of Christ; Rom. 
vi. 3. 

(2) The imposition of a name; this was also 
done in connexion with Jewish circumcisions. 

(3) The laying on of hands, as a symbol of 
the communication of the Holy Ghost, or of the 
gift of sanctification, which in this way is so- 
lemnly sought of God for the subject of baptism, 
and promised to him. This is mentioned even 
by Tertullian. 

(4) Sponsors at baptism. Tertullian (De 
Bapt. ch. 18) mentions these as being present 
at the baptism of children; but they were also 
concerned in the performance of this rite for 
adult persons; just as sponsors were called in 
at the rite of circumcision among the Jews. 
Such only, however, as belong to the Christian 



488 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



church can be employed for this service ; hea- 
thens, Jews, Mahommedans, and others who 
are not members of the Christian church may 
be present at the rite, but not as valid sponsors. 

(5) The subjects of baptism must renounce 
Satan. This denoted originally an entire renun- 
ciation on their part of heathenism and of hea- 
then superstitions, and also of the entire dispo- 
sition which had before prevailed within them, 
as far as it was opposed to Christianity. 

(6) Exorcism. The first traces of this prac- 
tice appear in Africa, in the third century, as we 
learn from Cyprian's letter, although a founda- 
tion for it was laid as early as the second cen- 
tury. It had its rise in various opinions, in a 
great measure superstitious, respecting the phy- 
sical agency of the devil upon men, and in the 
idea that evil spirits may be driven off by the 
use of formulas and certain charmed words. It 
was at first practised only at the baptism of hea- 
then, who were regarded as persons possessed 
by the devil ; but it came afterwards to be em- 
ployed at the baptism of the children of Chris- 
tian parents. Vide Kraft, Ausfurhliche Historie 
des Exorcismus ; Hamburg, 1750. Concern- 
ing the other usages in baptism, vide, besides 
the ancient authors, (e. g., Vosii Disertatt. cf. 
s. 137, 1. 1,) Calixtus, Diss, de Antiq. Ritibus 
Bapt. ; Helmstadt, 1650; Noesselt's historical 
investigation and illustration of the usages com- 
mon in baptism, published in the weekly " An- 
zeiger" at Halle, 1764, No. 28—32. 

Note. — The rite of exorcism has been pro- 
perly abandoned in most places in the protestant 
church. Although it is well explained in the 
Lutheran church, as a confession of the natural 
corruption of indwelling sin and of redemption 
from it, and in various other ways, still it is cal- 
culated to promote superstition and serious error 
in the community at large; and, what is most 
important, to excite contempt among the lightly 
disposed. Morus gives the same opinion, (p. 
257, note 3.) 

It may be remarked, in general, that some of 
the usages common in many places at infant 
baptism are not at all suitable to children, and 
have been transferred, without much judgment, 
to their baptism, from that of adult persons. 
Among these inappropriate services we may 
place the confession of faith, and the renunciation 
of the devil. Instead of these, it would be more 
appropriate and profitable to have a sincere 
prayer, in which the new member of the Chris- 
tian church should be commended to the care 
and blessing of God ; and at the same time a 
feeling exhortation to parents and other specta- 
tors, in which they should be impressively re- 
minded of the duties which they owe as Chris- 
tians to their children, and those entrusted to 
their watchful care. Much depends in things 
of this nature upon the teacher, who, even where 



the rites are not exactly suitable, can obviate 
mistake and remove ignorance by proper expla- 
nations. Even the best formulary in baptism 
will affect spectators but little if they see that 
the teacher uses it without any emotion, and re- 
peats it with a heartless voice and manner. The 
teacher needs to be on his guard against per- 
forming the duties of his office — especially those 
which frequently recur, as the Lord's Supper and 
baptism — in a merely mechanical way. When 
he performs religious services with a cold heart, 
it cannot be expected that others present should 
engage in them with warm devotion. A teacher 
who discharges his duties in this manner must 
lose in the good opinion of his hearers; and the 
blame is his own if he at last becomes con- 
temptible in their view. 

SECTION CXL. 

OBJECT, USES, AND EFFECTS OF CHRISTIAN 
BAPTISM. 

The uses and effects of baptism are divided, 
as in the sacraments in general, into internal 
and external. 

I. External Advantages and Effects of Baptism. 

By means of this rite we are received as mem- 
bers of the visible Christian society, and conse- 
quently become partakers of all the privileges 
belonging to Christians. It is therefore, consi- 
dered in this light, the solemn initiatory rite of 
admission into the Christian church, (s r tcra- 
mentum initiationis.) This is mentioned ex- 
pressly in the New Testament as the design 
and object of baptism. As soon as a person 
was baptized he was considered as a member 
of the church, (oiyios, ixa^tyjrr^, jic^'tevcov.) Acts, 
ii. 41, 44, and entitled to all the rights of other 
Christians. 1 Cor. xii. 13, "Whether we be 
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
free; ?tj IV <jw ( ua l,8a7tT , ca^ 1 uav" — i. e., we are 
united by baptism into one church, and have, 
as members of it, equal rights. Vide ver. 12, 
27. W 7 hence Paul says, Eph. iv. 4, 5, there 
is ev jSartrttJ^a, (one common baptism,) and sv 
cfw,ua, (one church,) and /xia iTurt&s of Christians ; 
and Gal. iii. 27, "As many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" — i. e., 
are Christians, belong to the school of Christ, 
and are therefore obligated to confess him for 
your Lord and Master, to obey him, and to fol- 
low his example. 

II. The Internal Advantages and Effects of 
Baptism. 

(1) In the old ecclesiastical writers we find 
many extravagant and unscriptural assertions re- 
specting the effect of baptism, especially in the 
instructions which they gave to catechumens and 
new converts — e. g., in Gregory of Nazianaen, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 489 



Cyril of Jerusalem, and even earlier, in Irenasus 
and Tertullian. Cyril of Alexandria went so 
far as to say that the water became changed 
(.ufr'atyr'o^ftova^at), by the divine power of the 
Holy Spirit, into an entirely different element. 
All this, indeed, admits of being explained ac- 
cording to scripture ; but it is still apparent that 
Christians began very early to attribute to bap- 
tism a magical efficacy, by which it produces its 
effect through its own inherent virtue, and inde- 
pendently of the use of the word of God, and by 
which it acts, not only upon the soul, but upon 
the body also. Hence they made use of it in 
t order to heal sicknesses, to banish evil spirits, 
&c. During the middle ages, these superstitious 
notions prevailed more and more, and were even 
adopted by the sctioolmen into their systems. 
We find, e. g., in Thomas Aquinas, the doctrine 
that a character indelibilis is acquired in baptism 
— an opinion which Augustine had before held ; 
also the scholastic doctrine that by baptism na- 
tive depravity is so far done away that only con- 
cupiscentia remains, and that even this loses the 
form of sin. Protestants have in every way 
endeavoured to separate the scriptural doctrine 
from these superstitious notions ; yet there are 
not wanting incautious expressions on this sub- 
ject even among some protestant theologians. 

(2) In the New Testament this magical effect 
is nowhere ascribed to baptism, as if faith were 
imparted to man by baptism without his being 
himself active in obtaining it ; as if he received , 
through this external rite, the forgiveness of sins, 
readiness in good works, and eternal salvation. 
Neither has Luther taught such a doctrine. On 
an adult person, who has no knowledge of the 
word of God or of the Christian doctrine, baptism 
can have no efficacy simply as an opus nperatum. 
Its effect on adults depends on their being in- 
structed in the divine word, and the connexion 
of baptism with this instruction. To this divine 
word, and the divine efficacy connected with it, 
(s. 130, 131.) does the power properly belong 
to renew the heart of man, and to make it sus- 
ceptible of the benefits and privileges which 
Christianity promises, and not the mere exter- 
nal rite of baptism. This we are distinctly 
taught in the holy scriptures. So Peter (Acts, 
ii. 38) exhorts his hearers to suffer themselves 
to be baptized els ayr^iv auapriwv, but he ex- 
pressly requires, as an essential condition, the 
ftetfai/oEti/, (which is effected by God through 
the use of Christian doctrine;) and it is the 
same in the baptism of John, Mark, i. 4, seq. 
So, Acts, xxii. 16, Paul was called upon to be 
baptized and to be washed from his sins ; but 
the condition was i7t<,xa%tod/.isvo$ to bvo t ua toy 
Kvpto-u. Several texts relating to this point 
should be here more particularly considered. 

(a) John, iii. 5, "Whoever is not born of 
water and of the Spirit cannot enter into the 
62 



kingdom of heaven" — i. e., whoever does not 
take upon himself the obligation to live in an 
entirely altered and renewed temper of mind, 
which is effected through baptism by the aid of 
the Holy Spirit, has no part in the saving bless- 
ings of Christ's spiritual kingdom, (forgiveness 
of sins and eternal blessedness.) Vide s. 126, II. 
(6) Titus, iii. 5, where Paul means to say, 
God had bestowed salvation upon them (tgunssv) 
by leading them to embrace Christianity. We 
become participators in these Christian bless- 
ings in a twofold way ; first, ha %ovtpov rtaJkiy- 
yfi'ffft'aj* so baptism is called as far as one ex- 
ternally receives it, and especially as far as he 
is engaged,- by means of it, to lead a new life, 
and receives strength for this end : secondly, xal 
8ia avaxai.v6fSs.ioi Uvsvfxato^ ayiov — i. e., through 
that entire change and renovation of heart which 
we owe to the Holy Spirit. This renewal he 
effects through the Christian doctrine, s. 130, 
131. The meaning is, "the renovation of our 
hearts, which is effected by the Holy Spirit, is 
bestowed upon us by the free and undeserved 
grace of God. He assists us to obtain this 
blessing by means of Christian baptism, in 
which we become obligated to lead a new life, 
and receive strength so to do, and also by the 
entire renewal of our hearts, which we owe to 
his Spirit." 

(c) 1 Pet. iii. 21. It is said concerning bap- 
tism, that it delivers or frees us from the pu- 
nishment of our sins, (crt^c;) not, however, 
as an external washing, but inasmuch as we 
pledge ourselves in this rite, and are assisted 
by it, to maintain a good conscience, and inas- 
much as it is the means by which we receive 
and appropriate to ourselves the gracious pro- 
mise of the forgiveness of sins through Christ, 
which is elsewhere called fietfdvout dyccocn;^. 

The scriptural doctrine of the internal advan- 
tages and effects of baptism may be embraced 
in the following points : — 

First. When we are received by baptism 
into the number of the followers of Jesus 
Christ, we sacredly bind ourselves to believe 
his doctrine in its whole extent, its commands, 
and its promises ; to embrace it as true, and 
therefore punctually to obey it in all parts, to 
live pious and godly lives, according to his pre- 
cepts, and to imitate his example. For he only 
who does this is worthy of the name of a Chris- 
tian, and can lay claim to the blessedness pro- 
mised to believers. Vide 1 John, ii. 4 ; iii. 3. 
Peter calls this, in his first epistle, chap. iii. 21, 
gvvs t6^(5fcoj dya^-rj irtfpiot'^ua e£$ 0f ov, and makes 
this one object of baptism. 'Ertfpto-r^ua is pro- 
perly stipulation and so denotes any solemn obli- 
gation which one assumes (before God). Hence 
the meaning here is : " By baptism we take 
upon ourselves the sacred obligation, in the 
presence of God, to maintain a good conscience, 



490 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to be watchful against sin, and to strive after 
holiness." The passage, Romans, vi. 3, 4, 
seq., teaches the same thing, coll. Col. ii. 12, 
13, "We are, like Christ, buried as dead per- 
sons by baptism, and should arise, like him, to 
a new life" — i. e., by baptism we obtain the 
assurance of the pardon of sin on account of the 
death of Christ; and so, when we are baptized, 
take upon ourselves the obligation to die to sin 
in a spiritual manner, as Christ died and was 
buried bodily, &c. The image is here taken 
from baptized persons as they were immerged, 
(buried,} and as they emerged, (rose again;) so 
it was understood by Chrysostom. Since im- 
mersion has been disused, the full significance 
of this comparison is no longer perceived. So 
then by baptism we profess to receive Christ as 
our teacher, Saviour, and Lord — i. e., we thus 
bind ourselves to embrace and obey his doc- 
trine, confidently to trust his promises, to ex- 
pect from him all our spiritual blessedness, and 
to refcler him a dutiful obedience. This is* 
what is meant in the New Testament by being 
baptized in the name of Christ. Vide Morus, p. 
246, s. 4. But since now all these blessings 
which we owe to Jesus as Messiah, or Saviour 
and Lord, are blessings which God bestows — 
blessings which, according to the Christian 
doctrine, are derived from Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit; so in baptism we bind ourselves to be- 
lieve in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit^as our 
God, to look for our salvation from them, and 
to acknowledge and adore them as the only au- 
thors of it. Hence the command of Jesus to 
baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, is designed to express the reli- 
gious connexion in which we stand to them, 
and our duty to pay them religious homage. 

Secondly. Through baptism we receive the 
assurance that the divine blessings which the 
Christian doctrine promises concern even us, 
and that even we may participate in them; or, 
in other words, these blessings are by this rite 
particularly applied to our own personal state, 
and we learn in faith to appropriate them to 
ourselves. As any one, on being formally ad- 
mitted as a citizen of a town, in taking the oath 
of citizenship, and in going through the other 
rites of initiation, receives the confident assur- 
ance that he has now a title to all the rights 
and privileges of citizenship ; so it is with the 
Christian in baptism. It is the same, in this 
view, with baptism as with circumcision. This 
Paul calls (Rom. iv. 11) a aqusiov and afypayiSa 
for Abraham and his posterity — i. e., a token 
of assurance and a proof that God was favour- 
ably disposed towards him, and justified him 
on account of his faith. So baptism is to every 
one the token of assurance that he may partake 
ii? ail those spiritual blessings which Christian- 
ity promises. Whoever, therefore, is baptized 



receives the assurance that his sins are forgiven 
him for the sake of Christ — that God, for the 
sake of Christ, looks upon him with favour and 
regards him as a child, and that he, in faithful 
obedience to the commands of Jesus, (and by 
enjoying the constant aid of the Holy Spirit 
which is promised,) may securely expect eter- 
nal blessedness; Acts, ii. 38; Gal. iii. 27; 
Mark, xvi. 1G. Hence Peter, in his first epis- 
tle, chap. iii. 21, compares the water of baptism 
to the water of the deluge, (as the Jews also 
called their washings and purifications spiritual 
floods ; avtttv7tog, image, likeness.\ Even as the 
pious at the time of the deluge (ver. 20) were 
bodily delivered ; so are those who are baptized 
with water spiritually delivered from sin and 
its penalty. 

Conclusions from the foregoing, and some re- 
marks designed to illustrate certain theological dis- 
tinctions and terminologies respecting baptism. 

(a.) It is justly maintained that baptism tends 
to awaken, enlarge, and confirm our faith, and 
that by means of it we receive power and im- 
pulse for a new spiritual life. This effect is 
produced in regard to both the objects which 
belong to Christian faith, the law and the gos- 
pel. Still this is not wrought through any mi- 
raculous or magical influence of baptism, or oil 
the Holy Spirit in baptism ; for, 

(6) This effect of baptism depends upon the 
Word of God united with baptism ; or the di- 
vine truths of Christianity and the divine power 
inherent in and connected with them. Cf. 
Ephes. v. 26, " Christ purifies and sanctifies 
the members of the church in baptism through 
the Word" — i. e., the whole gospel system in 
its full extent, its precepts and promises. The 
latter are made to us in baptism; and at the 
same time we pledge ourselves to obey the for- 
mer, and receive strength so to do. The means, 
therefore, by which baptism produces these ef- 
fects, or rather, God through baptism, is, the 
Word. It is the same in the Lord's Supper. 
It is accordingly rightly said that " God, or the 
Holy Spirit, operates in baptism upon the hearts 
of men;" excites good feelings, resolutions, 
&c. — namely, through the Word. Hence the 
effect of baptism is properly an effect which 
God produces through his word, or through the 
contents of the Christian doctrine, which is visi- 
bly set forth, represented, and appropriates to 
us in baptism, for the sake of making a stronger 
impression upon our heart. Baptism may be 
thus called, verbum Dei visibile. Vide s. 137, 
II. In the same manner, therefore, as God ope- 
rates upon our hearts, through the Word and in 
the use of it, when we hear or read it, does he 
also operate in this visible presentation of the 
same truth, by the external rites of baptism and 
the Lord's Supper. And so we may apply to 
this subject all which is said in the twelfth 



TATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 491 



article respecting the operations of grace, both in 
the statement of the Biblical doctrine (s. 130, 
131) and of the different theories of theologians 
in the succeeding sections. But this effect is 
not miraculous, not magical, not irresistible, but 
suited to our moral nature. 

(c) According to the ancient scholastic divi- 
sion, two things must be considered in baptism, 
materia (better, res) terrestris, that which strikes 
the senses externally — the water ,• and materia 
coelesiis, the invisible thing which is represented 
by the visible sign, and conveyed through it. 
This is the Holy Spirit, and his power and 
agency ; or, more definitely, it is that which in 
baptism is effected in us by God, or by the 
Holy Spirit, through the divine Word. 

Note. — Augustine expresses himself very 
justly concerning the efficacy and power of 
baptism, (De Bapt. i. 13, 18,) "It has indeed 
the power to effect regeneration (change of 
heart) in men ; but it does nothing for man's 
salvation, if there is in him any hindrance, (ob- 
staculum.y Luther too follows him in this, 
and says, very appropriately and justly, espe- 
cially in his large catechism, "that the divine 
word and instruction must not be separated from 
baptism, and that without the former, and faith 
in it, the water is nothing but water, and can in 
nowise benefit the subject." Vide Morus, p. 
250, n. 4. 

(d) Baptism is frequently represented as a 
tovenant which is established between God and 
men; hence the expression, to stand in his cove- 
nant of baptism, and others of the same kind. 
This name is derived from circumcision, and the 
covenant of God with Abraham established by 
it; also from 1 Peter, iii. 21, where ETtspw-r^a 
is translated covenant by Luther. Cf. Heb. 
viii. 10, seq. The thing intended by this name 
is true, if it is rightly understood. God so- 
lemnly promises to men, in baptism, the enjoy- 
ment of all the blessings which are promised in 
the Christian doctrine ; and man solemnly binds 
himself in the same rite to yield obedience to 
God and the Christian doctrine; and in order 
to this, receives strength and assistance from 
God. Any one, therefore, who has not broken 
this engagement, or forfeited this gracious as- 
sistance which is promised, stands still in the 
covenant of baptism. For baptism is the testi- 
mony, the assurance of pardon — the pledge and 
proof of this and all other Christian blessings. 

SECTION CXLI. 

OF THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM, AND WHETHER 
IT MAY BE REPEATED. 

I. The Necessity of Baptism. 

(1) An internal and absolute necessity of 
baptism cannot be affirmed. For the water of 



baptism, in and of itself, and the rite itself, as 
an external act, have no power to renew or save 
men. This effect depends solely upon the 
agency of God, through the Christian doctrine, 
united with baptism. Since, then, it is one of 
the positive rites established by Christ, and has 
no internal or essential efficacy, it is no other- 
wise necessary than because it has been com- 
manded (necessitas prsecepii.) But Christ has 
commanded that all who would be his disciples 
should be baptized. Any one, therefore, who 
acknowledges Jesus Christ as a divine messen- 
ger, and regards his authority, is under obliga- 
tion to obey his precept. Christ brought a 
charge against the Pharisees, (Luke, vii. 30,) 
that they had rejected the divine appointment 
(tiovhY] @£ov) concerning the baptism of John. 
He required baptism of Nicodemus, (John, iii. 
3, 5, 7,) and commanded the apostles to baptize 
all whom they would make his disciples, (Matt, 
xxviii. ; Mark, xvi.) 

It would be false, however, to assert that 
baptism is absolutely essential to each and every 
man in order to salvation. Theologians there- 
fore hold, with truth, that if a man is deprived 
of baptism without any fault of his own, his 
salvation is not endangered, by this omission. 
Even that familiar passage, Mark, xvi. 16, 
" Whoever believes and is baptized is saved, 
but he that believes not is punished," is not 
against, but in favour of this view. For punish- 
ment is here threatened only to the unbelieving, 
who wilfully reject Christian truth, and not to 
those who, without their own fault, remain un- 
baptized ; hence fiarttto^e /j is not repeated in 
the second member. For an unbeliever should 
not be baptized ; and even if he should be, it 
could do him no good. Just so it is in John, 
iii., where yevvrjois ex rtvevpatos is represented 
as the principal thing (ver. 6 — 8), and the yiv- 
vy\6i$ ex £Sa?oj as useful only so far as it tends 
to promote the former. 

(2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. The 
most opposite opinions have prevailed from the 
earliest times respecting the necessity of bap- 
tism. 

(a) Already in the second century some de- 
nied that baptism is necessary for every Chris- 
tian, and that it is the will of Christ that each 
and every one should be baptized. They main- 
tained, that those who have otherwise sufficient 
faith have no need of baptism. Of these Ter- 
tullian speaks, (De Bapt. ch. 12 — 14.) Some 
Socinians agreed with these, and maintained 
that baptism is not properly applied to such as 
are born of Christian parents, but that it is an 
external rite of initiation, by which those of 
other religions are to be introduced into the 
Christian church — an opinion to which many 
who are of a Pelagian way of thinking assent. 
It is true, indeed, that there is an entire want 



*92 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



of express testimony and evidence from the 
apostolical age concerning the baptism of those 
born of Christian parents. This inquiry has 
been lately revived ; and Teller (Excurs. i. on 
Burnet, " De fide et officiis") is of the opinion 
that those descended of Christian parents were 
not baptized, but were considered as born with- 
in the lap of the church. That this, however, 
was done, is implied in the whole design of 
baptism, as expressed by Jesus and the apos- 
tles, s. 140, and may also be concluded from 
the analogy of circumcision, and the uniform 
practice of the ancient church after the aposto- 
lical times. There is a work, in which, with 
a boldness not to be found elsewhere, the entire 
needlessness of baptism is maintained, its esta- 
blishment by Christ denied, and the whole thing 
given out as an invention of Peter, for the sa"ke 
of making himself pleasing to the Jews ; it is 
entitled, " Die Taufe der Christen, ein ehrwur- 
diger Gebrauch, und kein Gesetz Christi," pub- 
lished 1774. The author was C. C. Reiche. 
An answer to this was written by J. E. Tro- 
schel, "Die Wassertaufe ein Gesetz Christi;" 
Berlin, 1774. 

(b) Among the old catholic fathers in the 
Christian church there always prevailed very 
high ideas respecting the necessity and advan- 
tages of baptism. They were accustomed, how- 
ever, to defer baptism as long as possible (jpro- 
crastinare) ; and this is recommended even by 
Tertullian, De Bapt. c. 18;) and many would 
not be baptized until just before their death — e. 
g., Constantine the Great. They supposed that 
baptism removes, in a kind of miraculous way, 
all the sins previously committed ; while, on 
the other hand, the sins committed subsequently 
to baptism could be forgiven only with great 
difficulty, or not at all ; and so they imagined 
that one baptized shortly before death, or one 
who dies a martyr, (for martyrdom, in their 
view, has the same efficacy,) goes out of the 
world as a man without sin, and is saved. They 
therefore delayed very much the baptism of new 
converts, and prevented them from the enjoy- 
ment of this sacrament, entirely contrary to the 
appointment and meaning of the apostles, who 
baptized new converts immediately, and often 
many thousands in one day, respecting whose 
conduct and integrity they could not possibly 
have been thoroughly informed before; Acts, 
ii. 41; xvi. 15, 33, coll. Acts, viii. 13. Vide 
Baumgarten, De procrastinatione baptismi apud 
veteres; Halle, 1747. 

(c) When now the position, extra ecclesiam visi- 
bilem non dari salutem, with all its consequences, 
become more and more prevalent, especially af- 
ter the time of Augustine, and in the Western 
church (vide s. 128, II. and 135, 1.), they began 
to maintain the doctrine of the absolute neces- 
sity of baptism in order to salvation ; because 



baptism is the appointed rite of initiation or 
reception into the church ; and they gave out, 
that whoever is not baptized, and so is not a 
member of the visible church, could not become 
partaker of eternal happiness. So Augustine 
had before judged, not only respecting the hea- 
then and the children of heathen parents, but 
also the children of Christian parents who die 
before baptism. He was followed by the school- 
men. After this time they began very much to 
hasten the baptism of children ; and now, for 
the first time, the so-called baptism of necessity 
(administered when a child was thought in dan- 
ger of dying) became common. It happened 
also not unfrequently, that the children of un- 
christian parents (e. g., of Jews) were forcibly 
baptized against their own and their parents' 
will, on the ground that they were thus put into 
the way of salvation; of this we find many ex- 
amples in earlier times. That this is contrary 
to the sense and spirit of the holy scriptures 
may be seen from this, that circumcision was 
appointed on the eighth day, and one who died 
before was not considered, on this account, as 
shut out from the people of God. 

II. Is Christian Baptism to be Repeated? 

(1) The doctrine now prevalent in the church 
is entirely just, that baptism is not to be repeat- 
ed when one passes over from one Christian sect 
or particular communion to another. For, 

(a) Baptism, considered as an external reli- 
gious rite, is the rite of initiation and solemn 
reception into the Christian church in general. 
The subject of baptism pledges himself to the 
profession and to the obedience of the doctrine 
of Jesus in general, and not to any one particu- 
lar church. No one of these particular commu- 
nions (such as they have always been) is in 
exclusive possession of the truth (vide. s. 134, 
II, 2) ; but in this all agree, that they hold them- 
selves pledged to profess the pure Christian 
doctrine (i. e., what they, according to their 
views, understand as such.) Every sect binds 
its own baptized to this ; and hence it is, in this 
view, the same thing, wherever and by whom- 
soever one is baptized. And Paul taught the 
same thing when he said, 1 Cor. i. 12, seq., 
that one is not pledged by baptism to any man 
or to any sect, but to the profession of Christ. 

(6) The power or efficacy of baptism depends 
not upon the sect or the man by whom it is ad- 
ministered ; man can neither increase nor dimi- 
nish this efficacy. Vide I Cor. i. 12. 

(c) We find no example during the times of 
Christ or the apostles to prove that proper Chris- 
tian baptism was ever repeated; although we 
find some examples, even at that time, of great 
sinners and of persons excommunicated. 

(d) We do not even find that the baptism of 
John was repeated, (although, at the present 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 493 



time, the Sabeans in the East yearly repeat it;) 
and the same is true of Jewish proselyte bap- 
tism. The examples Acts ii. and xix. do not 
bear upon this point. Vide s. 138, IV. 

(e) Finally, the uniform phraseology of the 
holy scriptures teaches clearly the same thing, 
since it is always said concerning Christians 
who were received into the church, that they had 
been baptized (baptizatos esse), because it took 
place once for all ; not merely that they were bap- 
tized {baptizari ,-) Rom. vi. 31 ; Gal. iii. 27. It 
is a thing which had been performed. It is 
different with the Lord's Supper : this is a rite 
to be repeated ; 1 Cor. xi. 25, seq. Therefore, 
only when an essential mistake has been com- 
mitted — when, e. g., anything belonging to the 
essentials of baptism, as the use of water, or 
proper instruction concerning the object of this 
rite, has been neglected or altered, or if it has 
been administered by one not a Christian ; vide 
Acts ii. and xix., s. 138, IV. ; in such cases only 
must it be renewed, as baptism then ceases to 
be true Christian baptism. 

(2) The opinions respecting repeating bap- 
tism were different even in the ancient Chris- 
tian church. Already in the second century 
they were accustomed in Africa (as appears 
from Tertullian, De Pudic. c. 19; De Bapt. c. 
15.) to rebaptize heretics, and the same was 
done in many provinces of the East. This 
was not the case, on the other hand, in Rome, 
and in the other European churches ; here 
they simply laid hands upon those who were 
restored, when they were received back ; and 
appealed for this to the apostolic tradition, that 
whoever has been baptized according to the 
command of Christ is rightly baptized, although 
it may have been done even by a heretic. In 
the third century there arose a vehement con- 
troversy on this point between Stephanus, Bi- 
shop of Rome, and the African party, whose 
usage Cyprian zealously defended. But they 
could not agree, and each party still adhered to 
its previous usage. These opinions, however, 
were abandoned by degrees in the African 
church, as in most others; they were, however, 
revived in the fourth century by the Donatists, 
and other fanatics of the succeeding century, 
who would acknowledge no baptism as valid 
which was administered by a heretic, or any 
teacher who did not stand in fellowship with 
them. The same opinion was revived by the 
enthusiastic sect known by the name of Anabap- 
tists, in the sixteenth centgry. They, however, 
altered their theory afterwards to this, that they 
merely rejected infant baptism, and admitted 
only adult persons to baptism; and this is still 
the doctrine of the Mennonites and the other 
Anabaptists; hence they rebaptize those who 
were baptized in infancy, because infant baptism 
is not regarded by them as valid, and those bap- 



tized in this way only are considered by them 
as not baptized. They therefore reject the name 
of Anabaptists, (Wiedertaiifer.) The opinions 
of all Anabaptists of ancient and modern times 
flow partly from unjust ideas of the power and 
efficacy of baptism, and partly from erroneous 
opinions respecting the church. It is true, in- 
deed, that many who have denied that baptism 
should be repeated have held these same erro- 
neous opinions, but they would not admit the 
consequences which naturally result from them. 

(a) The Africans of the second and third 
centuries held this point in common with their 
opponents, that forgiveness of sin and eternal 
happiness are obtained by means of baptism, 
and the Holy Ghost by means of the laying on 
of the hands of the bishop ; and indeed both 
imagined that a sort of magic or miraculous in- 
fluence belongs to these rites. Vide s. 139, 
IV. The Africans concluded now, that as 
heretics do not hold the true Christian doctrine 
they are not to be considered as Christians, 
and consequently that their baptism is not 
Christian baptism, and that they, therefore, like 
unchristian persons, are not susceptible of the 
Holy Ghost. 

(b) The Donatists, now, maintained plainly 
and decidedly that the church can consist only 
of holy and pious persons, and that this genuine 
Christian church could be found only among 
themselves, (vide s. 135, II. ;) wherefore they 
rebaptized all who came over to their sect. For 
they maintained that the gratia baptismi does 
not exist among heretics ; that the ordination of 
teachers out of their own communion is invalid ; 
that others have not the Holy Ghost, and can- 
not therefore baptize in a valid manner; — in 
short, it was their opinion that the efficacy of 
the ordinances depends on the worthiness of 
him who administers them. 

(c) The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century 
proceeded from the same position, that the 
church is a community of mere saints and re- 
generated persons. They and their followers 
therefore rejected infant baptism, as it could not 
be known as yet concerning children whether 
they would live pious or ungodly lives; nor 
could children promise the church that they 
would live righteously. Adults only, in their 
view, might therefore be baptized. Cf. the work 
written by an Anabaptist, entitled " Ueber die 
moralischen Zwecke und Verpflichtungen der 
Taufe," which, aside from this point, contains 
much which is good ; translated from the Eng- 
lish ; Leipzig, 1775 — 8. Vide also D. A. J. 
Stark, Geschichte der Taufe und der Taufge- 
sinnten; Leipzig, 1789, 8vo. 

[Note. — On the general subject of baptism, 
cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 672, ff. 
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 55°6, s. 122, ff. The litera- 
ture of this doctrine is here very fully exhibited. 
2T 



494 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



For the early history of this doctrine, cf. Nean- 
der, K. Gesch. b. i. Abth. ii. s. 533—63; also 
b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 682, ff. ; for the more recent 
history, cf. Plank, Gesch. der protest. Lehrb. 
b. v. th. 1— Tr.] 

SECTION CXLIL 

OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS. 

Many of the ancients and moderns have dis- 
approved of infant baptism. It was first ex- 
pressly dissuaded by Tertullian (De Bapt. c. 
18), although he does not entirely reject it, as 
it was at that time in common use. But it was 
also quite common then to delay baptism ; and 
those who approved of this could not at the same 
time approve of infant baptism. Vide s. 141, 1. 
Infant baptism was also rejected by the Anabap- 
tists of the sixteenth century, and their follow- 
ers, for reasons mentioned in s. 141, ad finem. 
Mich. Servetus, too, in the sixteenth century, 
would have no one baptized under thirty years 
of age. There is no decisive example of this 
practice in the New Testament; for it may be 
objected against those passages where the bap- 
tism of whole families is mentioned — viz., Acts, 
x. 42, 48; xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16. that it is 
doubtful whether there were_any children in 
these families, and if there were, whether they 
were then baptized. From the passage Matt, 
xxviii. 19, it does not necessarily follow that 
Christ commanded infant baptism; (the ixa^rj- 
tswiv is neither for nor against;) nor does this 
follow any more from John, iii. 5, and Mark, 
x. 14, 16. There is therefore no express com- 
mand for infant baptism found in the New Tes- 
ment; as Morus (p. 215, s. 12) justly concedes. 
Infant baptism has been often defended on very 
unsatisfactory a priori grounds — e. g., the ne- 
cessity of it has been contended for, in order 
that children may obtain by it the faith which 
is necessary to salvation, &c. It is sufficient to 
shew, (1) That infant baptism was not forbid- 
den by Christ, and is not opposed to his will 
and the principles of his religion, but entirely 
suited to both. (2) That it was probably prac- 
tised even in the apostolic church. (3) That 
it is not without advantages. 

I. Proofs of the Lawfulness and Antiquity of 
Infant Baptism. 

(1) That infant baptism, considered as a 
solemn rite of initiation into the church, cannot 
be opposed to the design and will of Christ, 
may be concluded from his own declaration, 
Matt. x. 14, "Suffer little children to come unto 
me and forbid them not, tw yap •toiov'tw icrtlv 
7] fiavoteia 7ov ©sou." This is indeed no com- 
mand for infant baptism; but if children may 
and ought to have a share in the Christian 
church, and in all Christian privileges (/Sow^sta 



©foi), it cannot be improper to introduce them, 
into the Christian church by this solemn rite of 
initiation. Indeed, if it is according to the de- 
sign of Christ that children should have a share 
in the rites and privileges of Christians from 
their earliest youth up, it must also be agreeable 
to his will solemnly to introduce them, by this 
rite of initiation, into the nursery of his people. 
Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 14. 

(2) Christian baptism is so far similar to cir- 
cumcision as that the one was the rite of initia- 
tion into the ancient church, the other into the 
new; s. 137, II. ad finem, and Morus, p. 253, 
note. But Christian baptism represents and 
imparts far greater spiritual benefits than cir- 
cumcision. Now we know that the sons of 
Jews and proselytes, according to divine com- 
mand, were circumcised on the eighth day, when 
they certainly had as yet no idea of the intent 
and meaning of this religious rite. Accord- 
ing to this analogy, children among Christians 
may be baptized, even during those years when 
they cannot as yet understand anything of the 
design of the rite, or make any profession of 
their faith. At least, this analogy must have 
been very clear to the first Christians, and to the 
apostles, who themselves were Jews. When 
therefore in the times of the apostles a whole 
family was baptized, would not the children be 
baptized tool And did not Paul say without 
limitation that all were baptized, at a time when 
there were those grown up in the Christian 
society who were born of Christian parents? 
Vide 1 Cor. i. and xii., and Gal. iii. Again; 
were it entirely decided that Jewish proselyte 
baptism was common during the life of Christ, 
this circumstance would establish the position 
still more; for the children of proselytes were 
also baptized. But even if proselyte baptism 
was not introduced until the end of the second 
or beginning of the third century, and was then 
adopted in imitation of Christian baptism, even 
in this case it might still be concluded that at 
that time the baptism of infants must have been 
common among Christians. 

(3) The most decisive reason is the follow- 
ing: Christ did not indeed ordain infant bap- 
tism expressly; but if, in his command to bap- 
tize all, he had wished children to be excepted, 
he must have expressly said this ; Matt, xxviii. 
Since the first disciples of Christ, as native 
Jews, never doubted that children were to be 
introduced into the Israel itish church by circum- 
cision, it was natural that they should include 
children also in baptism, if Christ did not ex- 
pressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that 
this should not be done, he would have said so 
in definite terms. 

(4) That infant baptism was very common 
shortly after the times of the apostles, both in 
the Eastern and Western churches, admits of no 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION 495 



doubt, if all the historical data are compared. 
Vide Moms, p. 251, not. ad s. 10. Some have 
endeavoured to find evidence for this practice 
even in the writings of Justin the Martyr and 
Irenaeus; but they are not sufficiently decisive 
on this point.* The most weighty evidence 
that can be produced, from the oldest church 
fathers and from church history, is the follow- 
ing — viz., 

(a) From Tertullian (De Bapt. c. 18) it is 
clearly seen, that already in his time the bap- 
tism of infants was very customary in Africa 
and elsewhere, although he himself does not 
speak favourably of this practice. 

(b) In the time of Cyprian, in the third cen- 
tury, there arose a controversy concerning the 
day when the child should be baptized, whether 
before the eighth day. But there is no question 
on the point whether children ought to be bap- 
tized ; in this they were all unanimously agreed. 

(c) Augustine calls infant baptism apostolica 
traditio, and says, totam eccksiam id traditum 
tenere. 

(rf) But far more important is the testimony 
of a much earlier, and therefore more valuable 
witness — viz., Origen, of the third century, who 
says in his Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. vi., that the 
church had received this as a tradition from the 
apostles, (rfapaSotfts artoatoVuxri.) Here it might 
indeed be objected that the church fathers ap- 
peal much too freely to apostolic tradition, for 
the sake of giving to their own opinions and to 
the appointments of the church the more autho- 
rity. But if infant baptism was not practised 
in the oldest church, it is hardly conceivable 
how it should have become so general a short 
time after, and this too without any controversy 
or contradiction. "When Origen was born, about 
the year 185, it was universally prevalent in the 
Christian church, and he was, as he says him- 
self, a baptized child. If it was not customary 
at the time of the apostles, we must suppose that 
afterwards single individuals or churches began 
to baptize children. But in those times in 
which they adhered so strictly, even in the 
smallest trifles, to ancient usage, such an inno- 
vation could not possibly have taken place with- 
out great excitement, controversy, contadiction, 
and without occasioning many councils. These 
effects were produced by some very insignificant 
matters, but we cannot find the least trace of 
opposition to the first practice of infant baptism. 
There can, then, be no time mentioned in which 
the baptism of infants was first introduced after 
the death of the apostles. Therefore it must 
have existed from the beginning. Neither Ter- 
tullian nor Pelagius knew of a later orio-in of it, 



* [The evidence from Irenaeus is thought valid and 
incontrovertible by Neander; vide K. Gesch. b. ii. 
Abth. ii. s. 549, 550.— Tr.] 



when the former censured it, and the latter de- 
nied that it is necessary to procure the forgive- 
ness of sins for children. For the history of 
infant baptism and its opponents, vide Guil. 
Wall, Historia Baptismi Infantum, and John 
Walch, Historia Pasdobaptismi, Sa?c. iv pri- 
orum ; Jenag, 1739. 

II. The Uses and Effects of Infant Baptism. 

Although children at the time of their bap- 
tism know nothing respecting this rite, and are 
not capable of any notion of it, and can make 
no profession, (and these are the principal ob- 
jections on the other side,) still it does not fol- 
low that infant baptism is without advantages, 
any more than that Jewish circumcision was. 
It has twofold advantages : 

(1) For the children themselves. The advan- 
tages to them are both present and future. 

(a) The present effect, as far as it appears 
clearly to us, is principally this, that by this 
means they are admitted into the nursery 
of the church, and even while children en- 
joy its rights and privileges, as far as they 
are capable of so doing. This is sufficient; 
and there is no need of adopting the doctrine 
about a children's faith, so far at least as that 
implies anything which can exist without com- 
prehension and capability of using the under- 
standing. Vide s. 121, II., and Morus, p. 249. 
In the general position, that just as far as they 
have subjective capacity, and as soon as they 
have this, God will work in them that which is 
good for their salvation, there is not only no- 
thing unreasonable, but it is altogether rational 
and scriptural. It is also certain that we can- 
not surely tell how soon, or in what way and 
by what means, this subjective capacity may 
be shewn and developed. 

(b) As soon as their mental powers begin to 
unfold themselves in some degree, children are 
capable of an obvious inward, moral effect of 
baptism, or of God in and through baptism. In 
the Christian instruction imparted to them they 
must therefore be continually referred to this 
event; it must be shewn them that they too 
have obtained by baptism a share in all the 
great and divine blessings and promises which 
are given to Christians, and that they are so- 
lemnly obligated by baptism, through God's 
assistance and guidance, to fulfil all the condi- 
tions on which Christians receive these great 
promises. In the youthful age this means is 
exceedingly efficacious in exciting pious re- 
flections, and it operates upon the whole suc- 
ceeding life. It is on this account (as Morus 
well observes) a very suitable and commend- 
able practice in the protestant church, that the 
children, before they approach the Lord's Table 
for the first time, are thoroughly instructed in 
the doctrinal and nractical truths of Christianity, 



496 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



to the acceptance and obedience of which 
they are obligated by baptism. This is called 
the confirmation, (of the covenant of baptism.) 
It has upon many, as experience teaches, the 
most salutary efficacy through their whole life, 
and it is the duty of the evangelical teacher to 
lay out all his strength upon this instruction, 
and to make it, as far as he can, appropriate 
and practical. And if in some the advantages 
of it do not appear immediately, still in late 
years they are often seen. The good seed sown 
in the heart often lies a long time concealed be- 
fore it comes up. Baptism cannot indeed exert 
any compulsion upon children, any more than 
when one is enrolled, as a child to a canonry, 
or as an academic citizen. They must act ac- 
cording to their own conscientious conviction, 
choice, and determination, after they come to 
the exercise of their understanding. 

(2) For the parents, relatives, or guardians of 
the children. To these, too, is the baptism of 
infants eminently useful in many respects; and 
it may be said that this advantage alone is a 
sufficient reason for instituting infant baptism. 
For (a) the assurance is given by this rite to 
parents, in a solemn and impressive manner, 
that the great privileges and promises bestowed 
upon Christians will be imparted to their chil- 
dren also, and thus religious feelings, pious 
thoughts and resolutions, are awakened and 
promoted in them. (6) By this rite they are 
engaged and encouraged to educate their chil- 
dren in a Christian manner, in order that their 
children may receive the privileges bestowed 
upon them, and attain one day to the actual ex- 
ercise and enjoyment of them. These duties 
should be urged upon parents by the Christian 
teacher, especially at the time when their chil- 
dren are baptized ; and he may find instruction 
respecting the manner in which this should be 
done in the passages above cited. Respecting 
the usages properly connected with infant bap- 
tism, vide s. 139, ad finem. 



CHAPTER II. 

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

SECTION CXLIII. 

OF THE NAMES OF THE LORD'S SUPPER? AND THE 
OCCASION AND OBJECT OF ITS INSTITUTION. 

I. Names of the Lord's Supper. 
(1) The scriptural names, (a) Kvpcaxov Sslrt- 
vov, the festival which Christ, appointed, and 
which is held in his honour, and is commemo- 
rative of him, 1 Cor. xi. 20. Hence the com- 
mon appellations, the Lord's Supper, coena do- 



mini, or sacra coena, because it was instituted at 
supper time. Entirely synonymous with this 
is 'the phrase (b) Tpd^a Kvpiov, 1 Cor. x. 21, 
where we also find the name 7tor?jpc,ov Kvpiov. 
With these the term xhactcs tov dptov, Acts, ii. 
42, is frequently mentioned. But this seems 
rather to apply to the feasts of love, (Agapee,) 
after which the sacrament of the Supper was 
frequently, though not always, administered in 
the primitive church. Cf. ver. 46, j u.£?oaa l uj3a- 
vsw -tpo^r^. The term Stopsa E7iovpwlo$, Heb. 
vi. 4, is rendered by Michaelis heavenly manna, 
and applied to the Lord's Supper. This term 
seems, however, to denote more generally the 
unmerited divine favours conferred upon the 
primitive Christians. 

(2) The ecclesiastical names of this sacrament. 
These are very many : some of the principal are 
the following: — 

(a) Kolvlovlo,, communio — a festival in com- 
mon. This name is borrowed from 1 Cor. x. 
16, where, however, it denotes the profession 
which Christians make, by partaking in common 
of the Supper, of their interest in Christ, of the 
saving efficacy of his death for them, and their 
own actual enjoyment of its consequences. 

(b) TLvzapurtia and tvtoyia, (for these terms 
are synonymous.) This sacrament is so called 
because it is designed to promote a thankful re- 
membrance of Christ, and of the divine favours 
bestowed upon us through him. He himself 
commenced the Supper by a prayer of thanks, 
which has always been justly retained in admi- 
nistering this ordinance. The appellation eucha- 
ristia (eucharist) was used even by Ignatius, 
Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. 
[This name seems also to be of scriptural ori- 
gin, and to be taken from the phrase rtotrfiiov 
£v%oyia$ u sv"k6yovfi£v, used by Paul. — Tr.] 

(c) 2vva|tj, ovvo%i$ oiyta. This signifies, pri- 
marily, a collection ; then, a collection for cele- 
brating the Lord's Supper, and finally, the Lord's 
Supper itself. This name was probably taken 
from 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20, cfvvipxo/jJvcov vfiuv. 

(tf) Asitovpyia [primarily, ministerium'], then, 
the sacrament of the Supper, as the principal act 
of religious service, especially on account of the 
sacrifice of Christ which is there commemorated, 
since teitovpyCa signifies, by way of eminence, 
that part of religious service which consists in 
sacrifice. 

(e) MutfT^ptov, coena mystica and missa ; so 
this sacrament was called, because the catechu- 
mens were excluded from it, and none who were 
not Christians could be present when it was ad- 
ministered. They were sent away by the dea- 
cons with the words, Ite, missa est, (ecclesia.) 
Missa signifies properly dismissio catechumeno- 
rum et poenitentium. 

(/) There are other names, which were taken 
from sacrifices, and the offering of sacrinces— 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 497 



e. g., rfpotf<f>opa, oblatio, ^ucrta, ^fvsCa aval/A,axtos, 
altare, sacramentum altaris, &c. Many such 
names are found in the ancient liturgies. Vide 
Morus, page 271, note 2. Christ instituted the 
Supper chiefly in commemoration of his death, 
or his offering up of himself for man; and he 
employs in doing this the terms borrowed from 
sacrifices. Now it was customary for the Chris- 
tians who had most possessions to bring food 
and drink to their love-festivals, and from the 
remnants of these gifts (nipoo^opa) they held the 
Supper in commemoration of the sacrifice of 
Christ. This gave the first occasion for com- 
paring this sacrament with an offering ; and this 
was done the more willingly by Christians, as 
it was often objected against them, by Jews 
and heathens, that they had no sacrifices. And 
by degrees they became accustomed to regard 
the Lord's Supper not merely as a festival in 
memory of the sacrifice of Christ, but as an ac- 
tual repetition of this sacrifice — an idea which 
gave rise afterwards to the grossest errors. The 
first traces of these opinions are found in Justin 
the Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and still more 
in Cyprian, Augustine, and others. Vide Er- 
nesti in " Antirnuratorius," in his "Opusc. 
Theol." p. 80; and with respect to these eccle- 
siastical names in general, Casaubon, Exerc. in 
Baron.-— Ex. 16, p. 445. 

II. Texts relating to the Lord's Supper, and the 
occasion and object of its Institution. 

(1) The institution of the Supper is described 
in the following texts — viz., Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28 ; 
Mark, xiv. 22—24 ; Luke, xxii. 19, 20. Luke 
is more full and distinct in his narrative than 
the others; in John there is nothing said re- 
specting it, since he presupposed it as already 
well known. Paul, however, gives an account 
of the institution of the Supper, and agrees most 
nearly with Luke, 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 25. He is 
speaking of the disorders which had crept into 
the Corinthian church in their observance of the 
Agapae, and of the Lord's Supper in connexion 
with them; and takes this opportunity to dis- 
course at large (in the entire passage from ver. 
17th to 34th) respecting the design and the effi- 
cacy of the sacrament of the Supper, and the 
proper mode of celebrating it. Cf. 1 Cor. x. 
16, 17. Theologians are not agreed among 
themselves whether the passage, John, vi. 50, 
seq., where Christ speaks of the eating of his 
flesh and drinking his blood, relates to this sacra- 
ment. Vide Morus, p. 269, note D. As the 
Reformed theologians often appealed to this 
passage in behalf of their theory, the Lutherans 
(e. g., even Ernesti) would not allow that it 
could be used to explain the language in which 
the Supper was instituted. So much is certain, 
that nothing is said in this passage itself respect- 
ing the Lord's Supper, since this was not yet in- 
63 



stituted. But the terms here used have a striking 
resemblance with those employed at the institu- 
tion of the Supper; and since this discourse of 
Jesus produced at the time a great sensation on 
account of its remarkable phraseology, it can 
hardly be supposed that his disciples would for- 
get it, or that it should not have occurred to their 
minds when terms so similar were employed at 
the institution of the Supper. They, doubtless, 
could explain many things in this whole trans- 
action from their recollections of this discourse. 
This will appear the more probable if we con- 
sider that these words of Jesus, recorded by John 
(chap, vi.), were spoken shortly before the pass- 
over, (ver. 4 ;) that the images employed by him 
were taken from the custom of eating the flesh 
of the victims at the festivals attending the sa- 
crifices, and especially at the passover, the most 
solemn of them all ; and that it was exactly at 
the passover that the Supper was instituted by 
Christ. But allowing that these words may be 
used to illustrate those employed by Christ on 
the latter occasion, the Lutheran opinion is not 
invalidated. For every Lutheran will allow that 
it was a great object in the establishment of the 
Lord's Supper to remind us, in an impressive 
manner, of the body of Jesus offered, and his 
blood shed for us, and to exhibit and convey to 
us the great blessings which we owe to him. 
Now in John, aap£ and ou^a Xptcrroi; plainly de- 
note the doctrine of Jesus so far as he offered up 
his body, and shed his blood for the good of 
man. Vide John, vi. 51, 63. To eat and drink 
of this body and blood is the same as Hiaifsvsiv 
eL$ Xptcf-rov iatavpafitvov. Vide ver. 47, 50, 51, 
56. What food and drink are to the body, as 
contributing to its nourishment and vigour, the 
same is a living faith in this doctrine to the soul ; 
spiritual nourishment, pabulum animi. This 
language, then, is to be understood to denote 
"the truth of Christ's sacrifice or atonement, 
and the inward experience of its benefits." And 
this was the very object of the Lord's Supper — 
viz., to preserve the memory of the death ot 
Christ, visibly to set it forth, and to convey its 
benefits to those who partake of this sacrament. 
It cannot, therefore, be denied that the passage 
in John (so far as it is figurative and symbolical) 
serves to illustrate the language in which the 
Lord's Supper was instituted, and indeed the 
whole nature of this ordinance. Cf. especially 
Storr, Doctrinae Christianae pars theoretica, p. 
314, seq. 

(2) What was the occasion of Christ's institut- 
ing this festival? What was the immediate cause 
of his doing it? He was accustomed to take oc- 
casion, from the circumstances by which he was 
surrounded, to give instruction ; and at the pass- 
over everything was symbolical, and the father 
of the family (the character which Christ now 
sustained among his disciples) referred every- 
2t2 



498 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



thing back to the events in the life of the ances- 
tors of the Jewish nation. It seems now that this 
Jewish passover gave the first occasion to Christ 
for instituting' his Supper. 

{a) Christ abolished the ancient dispensation, 
(rtaTuwow 8ca&rpcijv ;) consequently all the Jew- 
ish festivals, sacrifices, and the solemnities con- 
nected with them, were set aside, and among 
these the passover, one of the principal festivals 
of the Jewish church. This was done, as we 
are taught everywhere in the New Testament, 
by the death of Christ. Still it could not be 
denied that this and other Jewish festivals had 
many advantages, and that they tended to keep 
alive a sense of the divine benefits, and to 
awaken pious feelings. Vide s. 137, III. 1. 
Besides, it was altogether customary, both 
among the Jews and the heathen nations, to 
have sacrificial festivals standing in immediate 
connexion with religion ; hence Paul objects to 
it that Christians who drink from the cup of the 
Lord, and eat at the table of the Lord, should 
drink from the cup and eat from the table of 
idols, 1 Cor. x. 15 — 21. Still it cannot be pro- 
perly said that the common sacrificial festivals 
among the Jews and heathen furnished Christ 
the principal or only inducement to institute his 
Supper, as was asserted by Cudworth, in his 
work, " De vera notione sacra? cc&nas," which is 
found in his " Systema Intellectuale," accom- 
panied by Mosheim's remarks — an opinion to 
which Warburton and others have acceded. It 
is also false to assert that the Lord's Supper is 
properly a sacrificial festival, like the Jewish 
passover, although it is a coena religiosa, or sacra, 
and although it may be compared, and is in fact 
compared by Paul (1 Cor. x.,) with these fes- 
tivals. Vide Morus, p. 261, note ; and p. 271, 
note 2. It is more just to say that Christ merely 
took occasion from the Jewish sacrificial festi- 
vals, and especially from the passover, all of 
which were now abolished, to institute this fes- 
tival, to maintain among his followers the me- 
mory of his offering up of himself. But in en- 
tire conformity with the spirit of his religion, 
and of all his other institutions, he left it unde- 
termined at what times it should beheld, and how 
often it should be repeated. He simply said, 
Do this, as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of me, 
1 Cor. xi. 25. 

(&) The passover was designed to commemo- 
rate the rescue of the Israelites from Egypt, and 
their deliverance from many afflictions; and 
was to be repeated by their descendants as an 
occasion for thankful remembrance of the di- 
vine favours. Vide Exodus, xiii. 9, coll. xii. 
26, 27. It took its name from this circumstance 
— viz., rv?, feast of deliverance, or rescue. In the 
same way was the Christian festival designed to 
promote the grateful remembrance of Christ, on 



account of the deliverance from sin and its pu- 
nishment, and all the other spiritual blessings 
which we owe to him, and it was to be repeated, 
£tj tr\v ifiriv apd/Ay/jCw ', Luke, xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. 
xi. 24, 26. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. v. 7, to 
7td<s%a tjuCjv vrtep ^wi» ttv^'/j, Xptofoj. He 
does not, indeed, here mean the Lord's Supper 
itself; but still it is very easy to see from this 
passage the intimate connexion of these ideas. 
The words, however, by which the Supper was 
instituted, This is my body, &c, cannot be ex- 
plained from the formula used at the celebration 
of the passover, This is the bread of suffering 
which our fathers ate, &c. ; for this formula was 
not adopted until after the destruction of the se- 
cond temple; neither can it be found in the 
Talmud, as Schottgen has shewn, (Hor. Tal- 
mud, ad Matt. xxvi. 26,) and also Deyling, 
(Obs. Miscell. P. i. Exerc. iv. p. 221.) The 
words of Christ on this occasion are rather to be 
compared with the Mosaic formula employed at 
the solemn sanctioning of the law, at which 
time sacrifices were also offered ; Exod. xxiv. 8, 
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord 
hath made with you. Cf. Morus, p. 260, note 2. 
(c) Christ did not institute his Supper during 
the continuance of the passover, but after it was 
finished, in order to give his new ordinance an 
additional solemnity from its connexion with the 
passover, and at the same time to make it entirely 
distinct from the latter. This example was so 
far imitated by the ancient Christians, that while 
they celebrated the sacrament of the Supper in 
connexion with the Agapse, or feasts of love, they 
yet observed it as a separate festival, after the 
former was ended. At the social festivals of the 
Jews, at the passover, &c, a cup was passed 
round, over which thanks were said, while the 
cup was drank to the praise of God— a custom 
which we find in other ancient nations. Cf. 
Psalm cxvi. 13; 1 Chron. xvi. 1, seq. ; also the 
rtotrjpLov ScupLoviiov, 1 Cor. x. 21. It was with 
this ceremony that Christ concluded the pass- 
over, Luke, xxii. 17. And now, after they had 
eaten, (i^iovtoiv avtav, according to Matthew 
and Mark, or psta to SsLTtvyacu, according to 
Luke and Paul,) he again offered a prayer of 
thanks, as was customary at the commencement 
of a festival {evxapcatr^a^) in order to distin- 
guish this ordinance from the one which had pre- 
ceded, and then distributed the bread and passed 
round the cup the second time. He took the 
materials for this sacrament from what remained 
of bread and wine (as the ordinary drink of the 
table) after they had eaten. And this was en- 
tirely conformed to his design, that the rite com- 
memorative of him should be as simple as pos- 
sible, and such that it could be often observed, 
and in any place, without much trouble or diffi- 
culty. In this respect the Lord's Supper differs 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 499 



widely from the Jewish passover, where every- 
thing was complicated and circumstantially ar- 
ranged. Vide Exod. xii. 3, seq. 

Note. — Christ recommended the observance 
of the Supper, not merely to the apostles, but to 
all Christians. Vide Morns, p. 259, s. 1, ad 
finem. Nor was it his meaning that they should 
merely sometimes remember him at their ordi- 
nary social meals, and while they partook of the 
bread and wine on the table, think of his death ; 
on the contrary, the apostles understood the 
words, Do this in remembrance of me, to relate to 
all Christians; and they distinguished this fes- 
tival from all other social festivals, and intro- 
duced the observance of it into all the Christian 
"hurches. This appears especially from 1 Cor. 
xi. 23, 24, coll. x. 16, where it is also described 
as an ordinance of Christ, and indeed as one 
which Paul himself, as well as the other apos- 
tles, had received immediately from Christ. It 
is said expressly, ver. 26, that this ordinance 
should be observed until the end of the world, 
(azpi$ ov eT&vj 6 Kvpio$.) The Supper was de- 
signed to be a perpetual sermon on the death of 
Christ until he shall come again to bring his 
followers into the kingdom of the blessed ; and 
every one who partakes of it is supposed hereby 
to profess that he believes Christ died even for 
him. There have always, however, been some 
who have supposed that this institution is need- 
less, or that the precept to observe it does not 
extend to all Christians : the Pauliciani, e. g., 
supposed that bread and wine are here figurative 
terms, denoting the doctrines of Christ, which 
nourish the soul. So the Socinians, and seve- 
ral fanatical sects. 

(3) More particular explanation of the object 
of Christ in instituting the sacrament of the Sup- 
per. 

(a) The chief object of Christ. From what has 
been already said, it appears that this festival 
was designed to be in commemoration of Christ, 
— of all the blessings for which we are indebted 
to him, and especially of his death, from which 
these other benefits all proceed. This is evident 
from the very words in which this ordinance 
was established, cs^fia, vrisp vfiujv SibSfisvov, (or, 
as Paul has it, xX^/xsvov, "DK>, lazdere, vulnerare, 
to which the breaking of the bread alludes,) and 
alfxa vrtep -fytwv, (or rtspi rtoM.wv, according to 
Mark and Luke,) exxwo/xsvov, el^ d^sGiv a/xaptiiiv. 
Christ often repeated these words during the 
eating and drinking of the Supper, and inter- 
changed them with others of the same import; 
and hence we may account for the different 
phraseology recorded by the different evange- 
lists. The same thing is evident from the ex- 
press declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26, "So 
often as ye partake of this festival, you profess 
yourselves among the number of those who be- 
lieve that Christ suffered death for their sakes," 



(pdvatov Kvpiov xa-tayysXsT's.) Cf. 1 Cor. X. 16, 
and also the fine paraphrase of this passage 
given by Morus, p. 259, s.*3, n. 1. 

But this needs more particular explanation. 
On the day of Christ's death the ancient Mosaic 
dispensation ceased, and the new covenant, or 
the new dispensation instituted by God through 
Christ for the salvation of men, commenced. 
The memorable event of that day, which had 
such vast consequences, he and his apostles 
celebrated by this festival, and he commanded 
them to continue to observe it in future time. 
It is therefore the uniform doctrine of the apos- 
tles that the new dispensation of God (xawq 
Bca^rixrj) began with the death of Christ, and 
was thereby solemnly consecrated. Cf. the 
texts cited s. 118, II. 1. Hence Paul says, Heb. 
ix. 14, 15, that even as Judaism was inau- 
gurated by sacrifices, so was Christianity also, 
by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And now as 
Moses, Exod. xxiv. 8, calls the blood of the sa- 
crifice by which the Mosaic laws and the whole 
Mosaic institute was consecrated and received a 
solemn sanction, the blood of the covenant, so does 
Christ, with a most indisputable reference to 
this expression, denominate his deaths — his 
blood which he shed, the blood of the new cove- 
nant; and the words t'o alua xaiv^ Sta^x^j 
(or, as Luke and Paul plainly have it, t'o no-tri- 
ptov {iori) 7j xacvvj hio^sr.xy] Iv t<p atfxati fiov) are 
to be regarded as explanatory of the words tovto 
ecrtc to Oiofid fxov, t'o alfid fxov. 

The meaning therefore is, " ye celebrate, while 
ye eat this bread and drink this wine, the me- 
mory of my body offered up, and of my blood 
shed for you, by which the new covenant, the 
new dispensation for the good of the world, 
whose founder I am, is consecrated." The sa- 
crament of the Supper is therefore a significant 
sermon on the death of Jesus, and requires, in 
order to a proper celebration of it, a personal 
experience of the benefits of this death. 

Christ says, " drink ye all of it; for it is my 
blood." By this he means that they should so 
divide the wine among themselves that each 
should receive a portion of it. He himself did 
not partake of the sacramental bread and wine ; 
for his body was not offered, nor his blood shed, 
for his own sake ; and those only for whom this 
was done should eatand drink of it. The <tovto 
EtfT't dui/xa and alpa refers, therefore, principally 
to the act itself, like the following tovto rtot- 
sitt — i. e., this act (which you shall hereafter 
repeat) shall serve to impress your minds with 
the great importance of my body offered up for 
the good of men, and of my blood shed for their 
sake, and shall remind you of all the salutary 
consequences flowing from my death, and shall 
convey these benefits to you personally. It is 
not, therefore, the then present and living body 
of Jesus which is here spoken of, but the body 



500 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



which was sacrificed — i. e., Christ, so far as he 
died for us. This is illustrated by the formula 
used by Moses respecting the passover, Exod. 
xii. 11, 27, Nfii HD5 — i. e., by this act you 
solemnly commemorate the deliverance from 
Egypt. And as the passover was appointed 
and first celebrated shortly before this deliver- 
ance, 90 was the sacrament of the Supper insti- 
tuted and celebrated just before the death of 
Christ; and as the former was to be repeated in 
commemoration of the great event on account 
of which it was first instituted, and for the sake 
of awakening grateful and religious feelings, so 
it was also with the latter. This analogy seems 
to have been perfectly understood by the apos- 
tles, and hence they do not inquire of Christ, 
as they were accustomed to do in other cases. 

(6) But in connexion with this principal ob- 
ject, Christ had also others in view, all of 
which, however, are related to this, and depend 
upon it. Especially does it appear to have been 
an object with Christ in this ordinance to make 
plain, and impressively to recommend to his dis- 
ciples that great precept of his religion, Love 
one another, as I also have loved you, 1 Cor. x. 
17; xii. 13. He designed that by this symbol 
his disciples should mutually pledge their cor- 
dial love. It is a thing well known by old ex- 
perience that friendships are founded, cherished, 
and sustained by social festivals. Of this fact 
many of the ancient legislators and the founders 
of religions availed themselves in the appoint- 
ment of festivals; and this was also done by 
Moses. In many of the Oriental nations, there- 
fore, the guest who had but once eaten with 
them, even if it had been only bread and salt, 
and who had drunken with them, was considered 
as a pledged and unalterable friend ; and it was 
in this way that the league of friendship and of 
mutual service was contracted. 

This noble custom was now made more ge- 
neral, and, as it were, consecrated, by religion, 
or the association of religious ideas. All the 
followers of Christ were to unite in this cele- 
bration, and to hold this festival in common, 
and without any distinction, in memory of their 
great benefactor and Saviour. For the follow- 
ers of Christ were required to love each other 
as brethren, and this/or Chrisfs sake — i. e., be- 
cause it is the will and the command of Christ, 
their common Lord. Vide Joh. Gottlob Worb, 
Ueber die Bundes-und Freundschaftssymbole 
der Morgenlander; Sorau, 1792, 8vo. 

But we must remember, in connexion with 
this, the uniform doctrine of the New Testa- 
ment, that Christ in his exalted state is as near 
to all his followers, at all periods, even until 
the end of the world, (Matt, xxviii. 20,) and 
that he equally guides and supports them as 
when he was with his disciples, by his visible 
presence, upon the earth. Vide s. 98. He was 



visibly present when he first held this festival 
with his disciples then living, and he then took 
the lead. But while he commands all his fol- 
lowers to continue to observe this rite until his 
visible return, he gives them the assurance that 
they stand equally under his inspection, and en- 
joy equally his care, with those who lived with 
him while he was upon the earth. Theologians 
say truly, Christus prsssentiam suam suis in sacra 
coena declarat adspectabili pignore. So cer- 
tainly as they see the bread and the wine, even 
so certain should it be to them that he still 
lives, and that he is especially near to them, as 
he was formerly to his disciples while upon 
earth. 

Note. — From what has now been said, it ap- 
pears (a) that the theory of the substantial pre- 
sence of the body and blood of Christ in the 
sacramental symbols is not essential, or is not 
to be looked upon as the great point in this doc- 
trine, and that it cannot be decisively proved 
from the words of Christ. The reformed theo- 
logians take dvat, here in the sense of signify- 
ing, shewing forth — a sense in which it is indeed 
often used — e. g., Sept. Gen. xii. 26, 27; Gal. 
iv. 24 ; Rev. i. 20. Christ himself uses iatt in 
a similar connexion, instead of crj^cuW, John, 
xv. 1. The objections to this explanation which 
are of any weight may be seen in Storr's " Doc- 
trina Christiana," p. 305, seq. Cf. also s. 146. 
This particular theory ought never to have been 
made an article of faith, but rather to have been 
placed among theological problems. Vide s. 146. 

It also appears from the foregoing that we are 
not to suppose in the sacrament any actual of- 
fering up of the body of Christ, repeated every 
time the sacrament is observed. This false idea 
became gradually prevalent in the Romish 
church. Vide No. I. of this section, ad finem. 
This sacrament may indeed be called, as it is 
by the fathers, a sacrifice, but only in a figura- 
tive sense. For Christ offered up himself once 
for all, Heb. ix. 25 — 28 ; and the Lord's Supper 
is the means of appropriating to each one the 
benefits of this one sacrifice. It is taught, how- 
ever, by the Romish church, that the priest of- 
fers to God, as a literal atoning sacrifice, both 
for the dead and the living, the sacramental 
symbols, which become, by consecration and 
transubstantiation, the real body and blood of 
Christ. From this doctrine respecting masses 
many other false ideas have originated. 

SECTION CXLIV. 

OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT IS ESSEN- 
TIAL AND UNESSENTIAL IN THE CELEBRATION 
OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE SUPPER. 

Some things pertaining to this ordinance are 
essential — i. e., of such a nature that without 
them the whole act would not be the true Lord's 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 501 



Supper; others are unessential, or contingent. The 
latter depend upon the circumstances of time, 
place, society, &c. ; and with regard to these 
things we feel ourselves justified in deviating 
even from that which was done on the first in- 
stitution of the Supper, since these are regarded 
as indifferent matters, Christ having given no 
express precepts respecting them. Thus all 
agree that the time of the day in which it is ob- 
served is unessential, although Christ observed 
it in the evening; the same as to the posture at 
table, whether sitting or lying ; and with re- 
spect to the place, whether it be a public or a 
private house; and other things of the same 
kind. 

But on some points opinions are divided. In 
the protestant church the use of the bread and 
wine (materia, or res terrestris, elementa, symbo- 
la) is reckoned among the essential things ; and 
the use of them too in such a way that each of 
the elements shall be separately (separatim) 
taken. Protestants, too, contend that none but 
real Christians may partake of the Lord's Sup- 
per. Other things are regarded by them as un- 
essential. These points will now be briefly 
considered, and illustrated by some historical 
observations. 

I. The use of Bread and Wine in the Lord's 
Supper. 

(1) With regard to the nature of the bread to 
be employed in this sacrament, the opinions of 
theologians have been diverse. 

(a) It has been asked whether the bread 
should be leavened or imleavened, or whether 
this is a point of indifference. In the protestant 
church the latter opinion is maintained, and 
justly, since Christ left no precept respecting 
this point. So much is beyond doubt, that at 
the institution of the Supper Christ made use of 
unleavened bread, because no other was brought 
into the house during the celebration of the Jew- 
ish passover, still less was any other kind eaten. 
We have indeed no express information respect- 
ing the custom of the primitive Christians in 
this respect; but from all circumstances it ap- 
pears that they regarded it as a matter of indif- 
ferance whether leavened or unleavened bread 
is employed. They came together almost daily 
to partake of the Supper, and they carried with 
them the bread and wine for this festival. In 
this case they took the bread which was used 
at common meals, and this was leavened bread. 
Epiphanius (Haer. 30) notices it as something 
peculiar in the Ebionites, that once in the year, 
at the time of the passover, they celebrated the 
Lord's Supper with unleavend bread. It was 
customary at a subsequent period in the Oriental 
church to make use of leavened bread, yet not 
always and in all places. In the Western 
church, on the contrary, unleavened bread was 



more commonly (though not always) employ- 
ed ; and Rabanus Maurus, in the ninth century, 
declares this to be an apostolical tradition in the 
Romish church. There was, however, at this 
time, no law upon the subject, either in the 
Eastern or Western church. But in the ele- 
venth century a controversy arose on this point 
between the two churches, as the Patriarch of 
Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, reproached 
the Western church for the use of unleavened 
bread, and made it heresy. After this period it 
was contended in the Romish church that no 
other than unleavened bread should be used, 
and this was so established by many papal 
decretals. The opposite ground was taken by 
the Greek church, and is still maintained at the 
present day. Vide Joh. Gottfried Herrmann, 
Historia Concertationum de Pane Azymo et 
Fermentato in Coena Domini; Leipzig, 1737, 
Svo. 

(b) Another thing which must be considered 
unessential is the breaking of the bread, which 
was done at the first institution of the Supper, 
according to the custom of the Jews, who baked 
the bread thin, and were accustomed therefore 
to break, instead of cutting it. We see, how- 
ever, from 1 Cor. xi. 24, (coll. x. 17, eIj apfoj, 
from which pieces were broken off,) that this 
custom was retained in the primitive Christian 
church, and was regarded as emblematical of 
the wounding and breaking of the body of 
Jesus. It would have been better, therefore, to 
have retained this custom afterwards, for the 
same reason that the custom of immersion is 
preferable in performing the rite of baptism. 
Luther at first declared in favour of the breaking 
of bread, though he afterwards altered his opi- 
nion. It has been customary in the Romish 
church, especially since the twelfth and thir- 
teenth centuries, to cut the host or holy wafer 
in a peculiar way, so as to represent upon it the 
crucified Saviour, and to make the pieces more 
and more small, that no one might receive too 
much of this costly food. 

(2) In respect to the wine, it has been com- 
monly supposed that Christ used such, in the 
institution of the Supper, as was mingled with 
water. For it was very customary with the 
orientalists to drink mingled wine at table, and 
one was regarded as quite intemperate who 
drank pure wine, (merum.) Still this is very 
uncertain, since water and wine were frequently 
drunk separately at table. In the ancient church, 
however, the custom prevailed in most places 
of mingling water with the sacramental wine. 
It was also determined how much wine should 
be taken; though this was variously settled. 
Diverse allegorical significations were given to 
the mingling of these two elements. E. g., it 
was said that the wine is the symbol of the 
soul of Christ, and the water of the people who 



$02 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



are united with him, &c. Such allegorizing is 
seen even in the writings of Cyprian. Cle- 
ment III. expressly enacted in the twelfth cen- 
tury that the wine should be mingled with 
water. This was not insisted upon by Luther, 
on account of the* superstition connected with 
it. The colour of the wine is also indifferent, 
nor is it certain that Christ used the red wine. 

(3) In order to the right celebration of the 
Lcrd's Supper, neither the bread nor the wine 
must be taken without the other, but both must 
be used, (communio sub utraque specie,) though 
one separately from the other, (separatim.) 

(a) As to the latter point, it is probable from 
the institution of the Supper by Christ that he 
distributed each of the elements separately to 
his disciples. But we find that in some of the 
Oriental churches an exception was made in 
behalf of some sick persons, and that bread 
merely dipped in wine was given them. The 
same thing was done in the West, especially 
during the tenth century, where, in some places, 
the bread only was consecrated, and then dipped 
in the wine, and so given to the communicants — 
a practice which was justly condemned. 

{b) It is also a well-founded opinion, that the 
cup should not be withholden from any who 
partake of this sacrament. Vide Morus, p. 272, 
n. 3. 

From 1 Cor. xi. 26; x. 16, 21, it appears, 
undeniably, that in the apostolic church all 
Christians partook both of the bread and the 
wine. And this was the practice throughout 
the whole Christian church during the first ten 
centuries. The Manicheans, who abstained 
wholly from wine, did not use it even at the 
Lord's Supper; but they were strongly opposed 
by the teachers of all other parties — e. g., Hie- 
ronymus, Leo the Great, &c. Particularly im- 
portant is a decree of Pope Gelasius I., of the 
fifth century, against some sectarians, who 
used only bread in the celebration of the Supper. 
He calls their practice grande sacrilegium, and 
is very strong in his opposition to it. 

But when the doctrine of transubstantiation 
began to prevail in the West, especially after 
the eleventh century, the schoolmen suggested 
the question whether, considering that the bread 
is changed into the body of Christ, the blood is 
not also there, and so, whether it is not enough 
to partake merely of the bread 1 This question 
was answered in the affirmative; and it was 
suggested as an additional reason in behalf of 
this opinion, that drink may be easily spilled, 
and that it is more difficult to lose any portion 
of the bread. This ground was taken even in 
the twelfth century by Hugo of St. Victor and 
Peter of Lombardy, and in the thirteenth cen- 
tury was defended with great zeal by Thomas 
Aquinas. Some churches in the West began, 
therefore, to introduce the custom of withholding 



the cup from the laity, and giving it only to the 
clergy. The first examples of this occurred in 
some English churches about the middle of the 
twelfth century. The scarcity and dearness of 
wine in northern Europe during this period may 
have furnished an additional motive for this 
practice. It was not until the thirteenth century 
that these examples were followed in France 
and Italy. Still this observance did not become 
universal either in this or the following century, 
although it was becoming more and more pre- 
valent in the churches in the West. This doc- 
trine de communione sub una was zealously op- 
posed by Wickliff and Huss and their adherents; 
and this led the Council at Costnitz, 1415, 
wholly to interdict the use of the cup by the 
laity. It was established by that Council, 
" that in each of the two elements the whole 
body of Christ is truly contained," This doc- 
trine has been maintained in the Romish 
church ever since this period, although many 
theologians, and even some of the popes, have 
objected to it. Luther and Zuingle adopted the 
principles of Wickliff and Huss, and introduced 
again the general use of the cup into their 
churches, and hence the decisions of the Coun- 
cil at Costnitz were re-enacted by the Council 
at Trent in the sixteenth century. Besides the 
older works of Leo Allatius, Schmid, Calixtus, 
on this subject, cf. Spittler, Geschichte des 
Kelch's im Abendmahl ; Lemgo, 1780, 8vo. 

II. By whom should the Lord's Supper be observed? 

who should administer it ? and may it be cele- 

brated in the Private Dwellings of Christians ? 

These questions come under the general in- 
quiry respecting what is essential and not es- 
sential in the observance of the Lord's Supper. 

(1) None but actual members of the Christian 
church can take part in the Lord's Supper; 
those who are not Christians are excluded from 
it. On this point there has been an universal 
agreement. For by this rite we profess our 
interest in the Christian church, and our belief 
in Christ. Vide 1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 26. The 
passage, Heb. xiii. 20, seems also to belong in 
this connexion. Every actual member of the 
church may therefore be admitted to the enjoy- 
ment of this ordinance, without distinction of 
regenerate and unregenerate persons, (though 
this is denied by some.) This is evident from 
the fact that it is the object of the Supper to 
make an external profession of Christian faith, 
(vide s. 145, I. ;) and because it may be, and 
is designed to be, a means of promoting a change 
of heart, and often produces this effect. As un- 
regenerate persons are not excluded from hear- 
ing the divine word, neither should they be from 
partaking of this sacrament. Nor do we find 
that persons who gave no evidence of a regene- 
rate mind, and who were yet members of the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 502 



visible church, were excluded from the sacra- 
ment in the primitive Christian church ; although 
such persons were advised to abstain from the 
sacrament, so long as their hearts were not in a 
proper frame, still it was left to their own con- 
sciences. Since, therefore, a mixed multitude 
of good and evil must be allowed in the visible 
church, it is the same as to the Lord's Supper. 
Christ himself admitted Judas to the first cele- 
bration of this ordinance ; and thus taught us 
our duty with regard to this subject. Many 
have indeed denied that Judas, the betrayer of 
Christ, partook of this sacrament with the other 
disciples ; but from Luke, xxii. 20 — 22, the fact 
appears too plain to be denied. This is admit- 
ted even by Augustine on the third Psalm. 
This fact is important, since many conscientious 
Christians, and even teachers, have had great 
doubts as to uniting with unconverted men in 
this ordinance, and have become separatists. 

In respect to children, however, it is main- 
tained that they are excluded from partaking 
of the Lord's Supper. It was common in Africa, 
in Cyprian's time — i. e., in the third century — to 
give the sacramental elements even to children ; 
and this custom was gradually introduced into 
other churches. But in the twelfth century this 
practice fell into disuse in the West, although 
in the East it continues to the present day. 
The passage, John, vi. 53, is appealed to in be- 
half of this practice. Vide Peter Zorn, Historia 
Eucharisties Infantium ; Berlin, 1736, 8vo. It 
cannot be said that the exclusion of children is 
expressly commanded by Christ, because there 
is. nothing about this subject in the New Tes- 
tament, nor do we read that in the apostolic 
church they were excluded from the sacrament. 
(The children of the Israelites were not ex- 
cluded from the feast of the passover.) Yet as 
children were not admitted during the first cen- 
turies of the Christian church, (except in Africa 
in the third century,) we judge that they cannot 
have been admitted in the apostolic church ; for 
in that case this practice would not certainly 
have been disused in all the churches. The 
cause of the exclusion of children is, plainly, 
that they cannot as yet understand the import- 
ance of the transaction, and must be unable to 
distinguish this religious festival from a com- 
mon meal; 1 Cor. xi. 29. It would thus be- 
come to them a merely formal and customary 
thing, and make no salutary impression. 

(2) By whom should the Lord's Supper be ad- 
ministered? As the administration of the other 
religious rites of the church is entrusted to the 
teachers of religion, it is proper and according 
to good order that this also should be adminis- 
teied by them. This, however, is by no means 
their right exclusively and necessarily, but only 
ordinis et decori causa, as Morus well observes, 
p. 272, ad fin. In extreme cases, therefore, 



where no regular teachers can be obtained, this 
sacrament may be administered by other Chris- 
tians to whom this duty is committed by the 
church. Vide s. 136, II. 2 ; s. 139, III. This 
has been uniformly maintained by Luther and 
other protestant theologians. In the ancient 
Christian church it w T as as regularly adminis- 
tered by the teachers as baptism. Justin the 
Martyr (Apol. i. 85, seq.) says that the ?tpo- 
satutss consecrated and distributed the ele- 
ments; and Tertullian (De Cor. Mil.) says, 
nee de aliorum manu quam pr^sidentium sumi- 
mus. 

(3) The question has been asked, Whether 
private communions (e. g., in the case of sick 
persons) may be permitted, and whether they 
accord with the objects of the Lord's Supper I 
This has been denied by some modern writers, 
particularly by Less, in his " Praktische Dog- 
matik," and by Schulze of Neustadt, " Ueber 
die Krankencommunion;" 1794. Cf. the work 
" Ueber die Krankencommunion, mit besonderer 
Hinsicht auf ihren Missbrauch und ihre Schad- 
lichkeit;" Leipzig, 1803, 8vo ; in which, how- 
ever, the practice is not wholly rejected. These 
writers have been led to make their objections 
by seeing the frequent abuse of private commu- 
nions, by knowing that they are frequently re- 
sorted to from pride, or from some superstitious 
ideas with regard to their efficacy. Hence they 
have been led to maintain that it is essential, 
in order to a right celebration of the Lord's 
Supper, that it should be held in common by 
the mixed society of Christians constituting a 
church, and that private communions cannot be 
regarded as constituting the Lord's Supper. 

This opinion, however, has been justly re- 
jected by many theologians — e. g., by Doeder- 
lein. The following reasons have been urged 
against it — viz., 

(o) It is doubtless true that in the apostolic 
church the Lord's Supper was commonly and 
regularly celebrated in the public assemblies of 
Christians; 1 Cor. xi. 20 — 34. And this must 
always remain the rule, from which there can 
be no exception in respect to those Christians 
who are able to attend the public meetings, but 
who refuse so to do, either from pride or self- 
will. There may, however, be an exception 
made in behalf of Christians who are neces- 
sarily detained from attending on the public or- 
dinances of divine service — e. g., in the case 
of sick, persons. And it would be, as Morus 
well remarks, inconsistent with the rule of 
love, which is one of the chief commands of 
Christ, if sick persons should be prevented from 
partaking of the Lord's Supper in their own 
houses. 

(b) A. public place cannot be made essential to 
the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, for 
it was held at its first institution in a private 



504 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



house ; nor is the number of Christians present 
at all important, since it was first celebrated 
only by a select few of the five hundred disci- 
ples of Christ then living-; but everything de- 
pends upon the feelings and character of the 
communicants. The Christian who in this act' 
commemorates the death of Jesus, professes his 
relation to the church, and forms pious resolves 
and purposes — he truly celebrates the Lord's 
Supper whether he performs this act in public 
or private. 

(c) Even in a private dwelling a profession 
may be made, by this act of faith in the death 
of Christ, before the teacher and others present, 
1 Cor. xi. ; and persons not present still learn 
that such a profession has been made. This 
object of the Lord's Supper is therefore attained 
even by the private celebration of it. There 
was a regulation among the Bohemian brethren 
in the fifteenth century, (about the year 146 1,) 
that when a sick person desired the Lord's 
Supper, other members of the church should 
partake of it with him, in order that it might be 
a true communion — an example which is worthy 
of imitation ! And even among us this might 
be done without great notoriety, by admitting 
the near relations, acquaintances, or friends of 
the sick person, or those occupying the same 
house ; and they, too, might perhaps receive a 
salutary impression from such a celebration of 
this ordinance. The assertion of Less, that pri- 
vate communions were unheard of in earlier 
Christian antiquity, is not true. Justin the 
Martyr says (Apol. 2), " that the deacons first 
distributed bread and wine to those present, and 
then carried it to the absent." 

III. Unessential Rites in the Administration of 

the Supper. 
It is important that the Lord's Supper, so far 
as it is an external rite, should be so adminis- 
tered as to distinguish it from common and or- 
dinary repasts, as a special festival in comme- 
moration of Christ. This is called by Paul, 2 
Cor. xi. 19, Biaxplvscv to <3u>fAa tov Kuptou. This 
may indeed be done without any external cere- 
monies ; and it cannot therefore be said that 
such external rites and usages are essential to 
the ordinance. Still it is wise, and adapted to 
promote the ends for which the Supper was in- 
stituted, to employ such external solemnities as 
will remind the communicants of the great ob- 
ject of this festival, and give it an obvious and 
marked distinction from other meals. Here, 
however, caution must be used, lest supersti- 
tion should be encouraged by the introduction 
of these ceremonies, and they thould be sup- 
posed to possess some special power. 

Christ distinguished this ordinance from the 
passover, which immediately preceded, by of- 
fering up a prayer of thanks, (fv^apwr^aa?, or 



Evftoy^ara?,) which was probably one of the brief 
thanksgivings common among the Jews, as 
neither of the evangelists have thought neces- 
sary to record the words. He then stated briefly 
the object of this ordinance. In both of these 
particulars, the example of Christ is properly 
followed in the administration of the Supper. 
It is customary to offer thanks to God, briefly 
to state the object of this ordinance, and thus 
solemnly set apart the bread and wine to this 
sacred use. Vide 1 Cor. x. 16, notr^iov sv%o- 
yt'aj, u zi-KoyovfAsv — i. e., the wine in the cup, 
which we consecrate to this use by the prayer 
of thanks. It is also said elsewhere respecting 
those who thank God for the enjoyment of other 
food, that they partake of it fist' sv%oyia$, 1 
Tim. iv. 5; Luke, ix. 16. 

This solemn opening of the Supper with 
prayer and reference to the command of Jesus, 
is called consecration, and is proper and accord- 
ing to the will of Christ. Consecration, there- 
fore, in the Lord's Supper, consists properly in 
a solemn reference to the object of the Supper, 
and in the devout prayer accompanying this, 
and not in the repetition of the words, this is 
my body and this is my blood. These words are 
uttered merely in order to make the nature and 
object of the ordinance then to be celebrated 
properly understood ; so our symbolical books 
uniformly teach. Hence these words were fre- 
quently repeated by Christ during the celebra- 
tion of the ordinance, and were used alternately 
with other expressions. This consecration is 
not to be supposed to possess any magical or 
miraculous power. Nothing like this was at- 
tributed to this rite by the older church fathers, 
who used consecrare as synonymous with a-ytd- 
£W and sanctificare, to set apart from a common, 
and consecrate to a sacred use. By degrees, how- 
ever, a magical effect was attributed to conse- 
cration, and it was supposed to possess a pecu- 
liar power. This was the case even with Au- 
gustine. And when afterwards the doctrine 
of transubstantiation prevailed in the Romish 
church, it was supposed that the change in the 
elements was effected by pronouncing over them 
the blessing, and especially the words of Christ, 
this is my body, &c. 

Besides this, there are various other contin- 
gent and arbitrary usages, some of which are 
good, and adapted to promote the ends of this 
ordinance, and others are extremely liable to 
become perverted into means of superstition. 
More full information on this point may be ob- 
tained from Christian Antiquities. Many of 
the rites introduced by the Romish church have 
been retained in the Lutheran church, such as 
the singing of the words of consecration, the 
marking of the bread and wine with the cross, 
the holding a cloth beneath, &c. These and 
other usages originated for the most part in the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 505 



doctrine of transubstantiation, and the extrava- 
gant opinions respecting- the external holiness 
of the symbols resulting from this doctrine. 
They admit, however, of a good explanation ; 
and where they are customary, and must be re- 
tained, they ought to be so explained by the 
religious teacher. Marking with the cross, e. 
g., should remind us that this ordinance is held 
in commemoration of Christ crucified, &c. 

SECTION CXLV. 

of the uses and the efficacy of the lord's 
supper; and inferences from these. 

We must here presuppose much of what was 
said, s. 140, respecting baptism. The uses and 
efficacy of the Lord's Supper, as of baptism, are 
twofold — viz., external and internal, and may 
be easily deduced from the design of this ordi- 
nance, as stated s. 143. 

I. External Uses and Efficacy. 
By celebrating the Lord's Supper, a person 
publicly professes himself to be a member of 
the external Christian church, and as such re- 
ceives and holds all the rights belonging to 
Christians, to the enjoyment of which he is in- 
troduced by baptism. For Christ enjoined this 
sacred duty only upon his followers. Every 
one, therefore, who partakes of the Lord's 
Supper, by so doing professes that he is a real 
member of the external church, that he believes 
m Christ, and yields him reverence. Hence 
Paul says, 1 Cor. x. 16, that bread and wine 
are xoivcovia atfxato^ xal 6u>[.ia?os 'Xpiatov. Paul 
here, and in this whole passage, teaches that 
the symbols (bread and wine) stand in the most 
intimate connexion with the body of Christ 
slain on the cross for our sins, and are the 
means by which we become partakers of the 
benefits of this death, and testify our interest 
in them. The meaning is, Whoever celebrates 
the Lord's Supper becomes partaker of the body 
and blood of Christ, and professes the same; 
or, By this ordinance he gives it to be under- 
stood that he believes in Christ, and especially 
that he believes that Christ offered up his body 
and shed his blood for him ; and he thus be- 
comes partaker of the benefits of this sacrifice. 
The terms xowuvoL §v6ta<rt9]plov, spoken of those 
offering sacrifice, ver. 18 of the same chapter; 
also xowavoi Sat/eovuov, ver. 20, are used in the 
same way, and are explained ver. 21, by the 
phrase fistizeiv Tfparii^rji Kvpcov xal Saiuoviuv. 
The opposite of this is seen ver. 14, "flee idol- 
atry," have no fellowship with idolaters ! and 
ver. 17, " while we all eat of one and the same 
bread, (a portion of which is broken for each,) 
we profess to be all members of one body" — i. 
e., of one church. The same is taught by the 
passage 1 Cor. xi. 26, " for as often as ye par- 
64 



take of the Lord's Supper, ibv ^dvatov Kvpiov 
xatayyiukEHs" i. e., you thus profess your- 
selves to be of the number of those who believe 
that Christ died for the salvation of man. 

II. Internal Uses and Efficacy. 

(1) With regard to the effects of the Lord's 
Supper, as well as of baptism, there were vari- 
ous mistakes, even among the earlier fathers. 
Vide s. 140, II. The opinion is very ancient, 
that the holy spirit so unites himself with the 
symbols when they are consecrated, that they are 
transmuted {ixEtavtoixeiovo^rai, irans-elementari,') 
into an entirely different element, become the 
body and blood of Christ, and possess a power 
and efficacy which cannot be expected from mere 
bread and wine. These thoughts occur even 
in the Apostolic Constitutions, in Irenaeus, Cyril 
of Jerusalem, Basilius the Great, Ambrosius, 
and others. It was on this account that the 
invocation (srttxXr^^) of the Holy Spirit was 
introduced in many places before the holding of 
the Supper. Vide Morus, p. 202, n. 2, 6. They 
say also that the bread and wine, through the in- 
vocation of the name of Christ, and by the power 
of the same, are sanctified, so that they no more 
continue what they were, but receive a special 
spiritual and divine power. So say, e. g., Theo- 
dotus, (as quoted by Clemens of Alexandria,) 
Tertullian, and others. Hence we often find in 
the ancient liturgies, both oriental and occi- 
dental, frequent invocations of the Holy Spirit 
of God and of Christ, in which they were en- 
treated to unite themselves with the bread and 
wine, and to communicate to them this power. 

At a very early period, therefore, a kind of 
magical and miraculous effect was ascribed to 
this ordinance, and it was supposed that as an 
external act it has a mechanical agency, not 
only upon the soul for the remission of guilt and 
punishment, but also upon the body. It is very 
often said by some of the fathers after the fourth 
century, in conformity with this latter opinion, 
that this sacrament has power to heal the sick, 
to secure one against magical arts and the as- 
saults of the devil, and even to effect the salva- 
tion of the souls of those who are dead. Hence 
originated the missae pro defunctis, and innu- 
merable other superstitious opinions and prac- 
tices, which fruitfully multiplied, especially in 
the Western church, during the dark ages, and 
which were then brought by the schoolmen into 
a formal system. 

(2) This magical or mechanical efficacy is 
never ascribed in the New Testament to the 
Lord's Supper. The opinion that man obtains 
faith, remission of sin, and new spiritual power, 
merely by the external celebration of this ordi- 
nance, as an opus operation, and by an external 
participation in the sacramental symbols, with- 
out being himself active in repentance and faith, 

2U 



506 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



receives no countenance from the sacred writers. 
The same is true respecting 1 baptism and the 
other means of grace. The efficacy of the Lord's 
Supper upon the human heart stands in intimate 
connexion with the divine word, and with the 
power inherent in the truths of the Christian 
doctrine. Without the knowledge and the pro- 
per use of the word of God, this ordinance, in 
itself considered, and as an external rite, has no 
efficacy. And so the effect which the Lord's 
Supper has upon the human heart is not ma- 
gical, miraculous, and irresistible, but in ac- 
cordance with our moral nature; exactly as we 
have represented it to be with baptism, s. 140, 
coll. Art. xii. s. 133. 

It is therefore truly said that the Holy Spirit 
acts upon the hearts of men through the Supper, 
or through the bread and wine, and that he by 
this means produces faith and pious dispositions. 
But he produces this effect through the word, 
or through the truths of Christianity exhibited 
before us and presented to us in this ordinance. 
The effect of the Lord's Supper is, therefore, an 
an effect which is produced by God and Christ, 
through his word, or the truths of his doctrine, 
and the use of the same. In the sacrament of the 
Supper the most important truths of Christian- 
ity, which we commonly only hear or read, are 
visibly set before us, made cognizable to the 
senses, and exhibited in such a way as power- 
fully to move the feelings, and make an indeli- 
ble impression on the memory. Hence this sa- 
crament is justly called verbum Dei visibile. 
Some of the most weighty doctrines of religion 
which are commonly taught us by audible words, 
through the outward ear, are here inculcated by 
external visible signs and actions. 

Among the doctrines more especially exhi- 
bited in the Lord's Supper is the doctrine of the 
redemption of man by the death of Christ, and 
*he universal love of God shining forth from this 
event, (Romans, viii. 32; John, iii. 16,) and all 
che duties both to Christ and our fellow-men 
which result from it. The contemplation and 
application of these important truths, to which 
we are excited by the Lord's Supper, awaken in 
the hearts of pious Christians the deepest love 
and gratitude to God and Christ, and a readiness 
to comply cordially with their requirements. 
And it is only when we possess this disposition 
and this temper of mind that we are truly sus- 
ceptible of the influences of divine grace through 
the word, s. 130, 131 ; it is then only that we 
can expect to enjoy that special presence and 
aid of Christ which he has promised at his Sup- 
per. Vide s. 143, ad flnem. These are the 
things which, according to the scriptures, are 
essential to the proper efficacy of the Lord's Sup- 
per; and we need not trouble ourselves with in- 
quiries respecting the manner of the presence of 
the body and blood of Christ in the symbols. 



Hence it appears that the internal efficacy of the 
Lord's Supper, or of the word of God through the 
Supper, is twofold. 

First. This ordinance is the means of exciting 
and strengthening the faith of one who worthily 
celebrates it, so far as he refers to the divine 
promises, and stands firm in the conviction of 
their certain fulfilment. Vide s. 123. For we 
are reminded by this ordinance, 

(a) Of the death of Christ. He instituted this 
ordinance on the day of his death, and the break- 
ing of the bread and pouring out of the wine 
represent the violence done to his body and the 
shedding of his blood. Vide s. 144, I. 1. 

(b) Of the causes and the salutary results of 
his death — the founding of a new dispensation, 
the forgiveness of sins, and our title to everlast- 
ing happiness. Vide Heb. viii. 6, seq. 

(c) Of the special guidance and assistance 
which Christ has promised to his disciples until 
the end of the world. Vide s. 143, ad finem. 

(e?) Any one who from the heart believes these 
great truths of Christianity, obtains in the Lord's 
Supper the personal appropriation of these be- 
nefits procured through Christ's death — i. e., he 
receives in the Lord's Supper the most solemn 
assurance and pledge that Christ shed his blood 
for him and on his account, and that he therefor* 
may participate in all the salutary results of hL 
death. 

This is the xocvcovlcl aiuatog and tiJo/xatos 
~Kpt6tov, 1 Cor. x. 16, or the spiritual enjoyment 
of the body and blood of Christ. It should be as 
certain to us as that we see the bread and wine, 
that Christ died for us, and that he still cares for 
us, as he did formerly for his disciples while he 
was upon the earth, and still promotes our 
eternal welfare. This is the true inward enjoy- 
ment which may be experienced at the table of 
the Lord. 

Secondly. In this way does this ordinance 
contribute to maintain and promote piety among 
believers. The contemplation of the death of 
Christ, of its causes, and the great and beneficial 
results which flow from it, fills our hearts with 
gratitude and love to God and Christ, and makes 
us disposed and ready to obey his precepts. In 
this frame we are prepared to enjoy those divine 
influences upon our hearts, and that assistance 
of Christ, which it is promised w T e shall enjoy 
at the Lord's Supper. 

Again; Christ inculcates the love of God and 
the love of our neighbour as the two great pre- 
cepts of his doctrine. Of both these duties we 
are reminded by' this sacred rite, and derive from 
it new motives to perform them. All Christians 
without distinction are required to participate in 
this rite — high and low, rich and poor, to eat in 
common of one bread and drink of one cup. As 
followers of Jesus they are all brethren, and 
all equal, and mutually bound to live in peace, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 507 



friendship, and brotherly love. All share equally 
in the rights which Christ purchased for them. 
Christ is the Lord and Master of them all, and 
's the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Cf. 
1 Cor. x. 17 ; xii. 13, "For whether we be Jews 
or Greeks, bond or free, we are all baptized into 
one body, and made to drink into one spirit (t7to- 
fio&lfiev)" — i. e., we partake of one festival, so 
that we compose but one church (stj sv a^ua), 
and are mutually obligated to cherish the most 
cordial brotherly love and harmony of feeling, 
iv svi, Ttvcv^a-roj. Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17; Ephes. iv. 
3, 4. It was one object even of the Mosaic sa- 
crificial feasts to bind more strongly the band 
of friendship and brotherly love among the Is- 
raelites. But here we have xpsCtroves eTtayys'kicu. 
Vide s. 143, I. 3. 

From these remarks respecting the object and 
efficacy of the Lord's Supper, several important 
practical consequenees may be derived. 

(1) Whoever partakes of the Lord's Supper 
takes upon himself the sacred obligation to live 
in all respects conformably to the rule given in 
the gospel, and there made the condition of en- 
joying the salutary consequences of the atoning 
death of Jesus. Theologians therefore say that 
in enjoying the Lord's Supper a covenant is made 
with God, since man engages, on his side, to 
yield obedience to the divine precepts, and God, 
on his part, promises, assures, and actually im- 
parts to men his benefits ; as it is in baptism, s. 
140, ad finem. 

(2) Since the uses and the effects of the Lord's 
Supper are not magical, miraculous, or irresisti- 
ble, but entirely adapted to the moral nature of 
man, he only can derive the proper benefits from 
this rite who falls in with the moral order above 
mentioned. Therefore, 

(3) Whoever devoutly contemplates the great 
truths of salvation represented and made present 
to us in the Lord's Supper, and suffers himself 
to be excited by these means to feelings of lively 
gratitude to God, to diligence in the pursuit of 
holiness, and to a truly Christian temper in all 
respects, he fulfils, on his part, the design of 
this rite. It follows from this, of course, that 
this festival in commemoration of the death of 
Christ can be properly celebrated only in the 
exercise of a grateful heart, and of pious rever- 
ence. 

But, on the other side, the communicant must 
endeavour to remove from his mind all supersti- 
tious fear and scrupulous anxiety about this ordi- 
nance. These fears are often cherished by the 
incautious expressions which religious teachers 
sometimes use ; and even by theologians has this 
rite been called tbemendum mysterium. Re- 
verence and love for God do indeed go together ; 
and in this se?ise such representations are proper. 
But anxiety and slavish fear are inconsistent 
with, love, 1 John, iv. 19, $6fio$ ovx zoiiv iv 



aydrC'/j. The celebration of this festival should 
rather be a cheerful occasion ; and it should pro- 
mote pious and thankful joy, since it brings to 
our mind an event so fraught with happy conse- 
quences for us. 

What Paul says on this subject, 1 Cor. xi. 
27 — 29, and 34, is very true, but often misunder- 
stood. He speaks here of the external conduct 
of the communicants, so far as it indicates his 
internal disposition or state of heart. Many of 
the Corinthians partook of the Lord's Supper 
without thinking at all of its great object. They 
did not regard it as a religious rite, but rather as 
a common meal, (ay; 8i.axpivov7e$ a^/xa Kvpiou, 
ver. 29.) They permitted themselves those 
disorders and excesses in which many think it 
right to indulge at common meals, — quarrels, 
gluttony, drunkenness, &c. ; ver. 17 — 22. This 
is called by Paul dyafuoj ea&sw xai rtiveiv — i. e., 
indecore, in an unbecoming, improper manner, so 
as to shew by one's conduct an irreligious dis- 
position, an indifference with regard to this im- 
portant rite, and a contempt for it. Paul pro- 
nounces this to be in the highest degree wrong, 
and therefore deserving of punishment, tvo%os 
%6-tai Gu>uato^ xai ai/xato$ Kvpiov, ver. 27 — i. e., 
worthy of punishment on account of the body 
and blood of Christ undervalued by him; and 
ver. 29, (coll. ver. 34,) xplua iavtci ea&st xai, 
riCvsL, he draws upon himself divine judgments 
on account of his improper observance of this 
ordinance. 

(4) The observance of the Lord's Supper does 
not require, therefore, in the pious Christian, any 
severe and anxious preparation ; he may partake 
of it at any time with advantage, as he may at 
any time die happily. And the unconverted man 
has no other exercises and preparations to go 
through than those which in general he must go 
through in order to his conversion, (psidvoia.) 
It is with reason, however, that Paul makes it 
the duty of every Christian carefully to examine 
his feelings and his conduct before approaching 
the table of Christ. 1 Cor. xi. 28, SoxLua&ta 
d)£pa>7tos aavtbv, xai ckuVcoj) i. e., after he has 
examined himself) ix tov dprov ia^iitw cf. ver. 
31. The meaning is, "Let him examine him- 
self, to see whether he approaches the Lord's 
Supper with pious feelings, really designing t«i 
do what this action implies" — viz., make a pro- 
fession of the death of Christ in the fullest sense 
of this term. 

Note. — Times for confession, or rather, for pre- 
paration for the Lord's Supper, may and should 
be employed for the purpose of this personal 
self-examination. These occasions should also 
be improved for the purpose of shewing the 
evils which result from a thoughtless partaking 
of the sacramental Supper, according to 1 Cor. 
xi. It must not, however, be said that every 
unconverted man receives the Lord's Supper t-o 



508 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



his own eternal condemnation. This is not a 
scriptural doctrine. Vide 1 Cor. xi. 32. Nor 
does it belong to the teacher to exclude any one 
from this ordinance because he regards him as 
unconverted, even supposing him to have power 
so to do. Vide s. 144, II. It is his duty, how- 
ever, to warn such a person, and represent to him 
his case, as Paul does, 1 Cor. xi. 

(5) How often should the Lord's Supper be cele- 
brated? Christ gave no definite precepts on this 
point, and this was very wise. Everything me- 
chanical, confined to a particular time or a parti- 
cular place, is contrary to the spirit of Chris- 
tianity. Christ has therefore left it for every 
Christian to determine, according to his con- 
scientious conviction and judgment, how often he 
will freely repeat this solemn observance. And 
thus in this respect also does this Christian ordi- 
nance differ from the passover and other religious 
ceremonies of the Israelites. It is to be expected 
of every sincere Christian that, finding how salu- 
tary these communion seasons are in their influ- 
ence upon him, he will welcome their return, and 
wish them to be often repeated. But to the 
question, how often? no answer, from the nature 
of the case, can be given which will apply to 
every individual. In the early Christian church 
they were accustomed to celebrate the Lord's 
Supper almost daily. But the too frequent repe- 
tition of this ordinance will be apt to produce 
coldness and indifference with regard to it. This 
perhaps had been the case in Corinth ; cf. 1 Cor. 
xi. 20 — 30. The zeal with which this ordinance 
was first observed gradually abated, and for this 
reason, among others, that but few good fruits 
were seen to result from it. At the time of 
Chrysostom and Augustine, the observance of 
the Supper had become far less frequent. Be- 
tween the sixth and eighth centuries it was cus- 
tomary, especially in the Western church, for 
every Christian to commune at least three times 
during the year ; and this was even established 
as a rule by many ecclesiastical councils. In 
the protestant church no laws have been passed 
on this subject; and this is as it should be. 

SECTION CXLVI. 

THE VARIOUS OPINIONS AND FORMS OF DOCTRINE 
RESPECTING THE PRESENCE OF THE BODY AND 
BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE LORD'S SUPPER HISTO- 
RICALLY EXPLAINED ; AND ALSO A CRITIQUE RE- 
SPECTING THEM. 

I. History of Opinions respecting the Presence of the 
Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. 

(1) It may be remarked, in general, that the 
opinions of the ancients on this subject, from the 
first establishment of the Christian church until 
the eighth century, were very diverse. After the 



eighth century there were some controversies 
respecting the mode and manner of this presence 
of Christ; and in the thirteenth century, one of 
the many theories on this subject was established 
as orthodox. The church fathers in the first 
centuries agreed on many points relating to this 
matter, and on other points differed, without, 
however, mutually casting upon each other the 
reproach of heterodoxy. 

The first germs of the Roman-catholic, the 
Lutheran, and the Calvinistic theories, are found 
already in their writings ; but it was not until a 
later period that they were developed, and new 
consequences deduced from them. We cannot 
therefore conclude, when we meet with expres- 
sions in the ancient fathers which sound like 
those which are used in our own times, that they 
adopted the whole theory of one or the other mo- 
dern party. Their ideas are so vague, their ex- 
pressions so indefinite and unsettled, that each of 
the dissenting parties in modern times may fre- 
quently discover passages, even in the same 
father, which seem to favour its own particular 
theory. 

In the sixteenth century, when the catholics, 
Lutherans, and the reformed theologians were in 
controversy with each other on this point, each 
party collected passages from the fathers, in order 
to shew the antiquity of its own theory; thus 
Melancthon in opposition to (Ecolampadius, and 
the latter against the former. In the seventeenth 
century, many controversial books passed back 
and forth between the learned Roman-catholic 
theologians of France and the reformed theolo- 
gians of France and the Netherlands, in which 
Nicole, Arnaud, and others, endeavoured to 
prove, on one side, the antiquity of the doctrine 
of transubstantiation; and Albertinus, Claude, 
Blondell, Laroque, and others, attempted, on the 
other side, to secure the authority of the ancients 
in behalf of the doctrine of the reformed churcn. 
Ernesti also, in his Antimuratorius^ (Opus. 
Theo!. p. 1, seq.,) has collected many passages 
from the ancients in behalf of the Lutheran the- 
ory, and in opposition to transubstantiation, &c. ; 
also in his " Brevis Repetitio et Assertio Sen- 
tentias Lutheran® de Prassentia Corporis et 
Sanguinis Chri3ti in Sacra Ccsna," (Opus. 
Theol. p. 135, seq.,) which is one of the most 
important modern works en the Lutheran side. 
It was called forth by Heumann's " Proof that 
the Doctrine of the Reformed Church respect- 
ing the Lord's Supper is correct and true ;" 
Eisleben, 1764. It is a very easy matter, how- 
ever, for any one to find his own ideas express- 
ed in the vague and indefinite phraseology ot 
the fathers. The testimony of the sacred writers 
in favour of the essential part of the doc- 
trine of the Lutheran church has been exhibited 
partly by Ernesti, and partly by Storr, in a 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 50<* 



very plain and lucid, though brief manner, in 
his "Doctrines Christianas pars Theoretica," p. 
305—318. 

[The later works of most value on this de- 
partment of historical theology are, Phil. Mar- 
heinecke, Sanctorum Patrum de Preesentia 
Christi in Ccena Domini, Sententia Triplex; 
Heidelberg, 1811, 4to. Neander, Kirch. Ges- 
chichte, b. i. Abth. ii. s. 577 — 596 ; Abth. iii. 
s. 1084 ; b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 697—712 ; Abth. iii. 
s. 1394. Cf. Gieseler, b. i. s. 96 ; b. ii. s. 15, 
17. A full account of the literature of this doc- 
trine, in all periods, may be found in Hahn's 
Lehrbuch, s. 570, ff. ; also in Bretschneider's 
Syst. Entw. s. 728, ff.— Tr.] 

(2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine from 
the second to the ninth century, 

(a) The fathers of the second century pro- 
ceeded on the principle, which is in itself true, 
that the Lord's Supper must be considered as 
entirely different from an ordinary repast. Jus- 
tin the Martyr says, (Apol. i. 66,) ov xoivb$ 
apr'os, ovbh xoivbv 7t6/xa. They, however, enter- 
tained, even at that early period, many ideas 
respecting this ordinance which have no scrip- 
tural authority. Neither in the writings of the 
apostles, nor in the words of Christ, is there 
any trace of the opinion that a certain superna- 
tural and divine power is imparted, in a mira- 
culous and magical way, to the symbols, and 
that in this manner the Lord's Supper exerts an 
agency upon men. But this opinion (which 
resembles that entertained by many respecting 
the water in baptism) is found very frequently 
in the writings of Justin, Ireneeus, (iv. 34,) 
Clemens of Alexandria, and other fathers even 
of the second and third centuries ; and it is entire- 
ly in accordance with the spirit and taste of that 
age, which beheld everywhere something ma- 
gical and mysterious, and could not be contented 
unless it found something surpassing compre- 
hension. In order to express their opinion that 
the bread and wine are changed by the divine 
power, or by the Holy Spirit, and thus obtain 
a new virtue and efficacy, totally different from 
that which naturally belongs to them, they used 
the terms [AeTfafidTJkto^cu, /xfra,8o^, ixsTfa/A-op^ova- 

Still they did not suppose any such change 
in the elements, that they cease to be bread and 
wine — i. e., they did not believe in transubstan- 
tiation, in the proper sense of the term ; neither 
does the Grecian church, which employs these 
terms, especially ^^^80^, but still opposes the 
doctrine of the Romish church. Some of the 
fathers understood these terms in a perfectly 
just sense, and meant only to say that the 
bread and wine cease, by consecration, to be 
-ommon bread and wine. 

(6) Again ; it was maintained that the Word 



of God (Aoyoj ®sov) is added to the bread and 
wine thus ennobled and endowed with divine 
power. If by the Word of God is meant the 
Christian doctrine, it is very true that the effi- 
cacy of the Lord's Supper is connected with it, 
and depends upon it. Vide s. 145. So it was 
understood by many of the ancient fathers, 
e. g., Irenaeus. But some of them understood 
by 6 Aoyo$, the divine nature of Christ. And 
from the fact that this Logos was united with 
the man Jesus and his human body, they were 
led to the idea, that after the same manner he 
is united with the bread and wine in the Lord's 
Supper. And they endeavoured to illustrate 
this union of Christ with the sacramental bread 
and wine, from the union of the two natures in 
his person. 

In this comparison, which was made by Jus- 
tin the Martyr, we find the true origin of the 
doctrine concerning the real presence of the 
body and blood of Christ in the elements on his 
table. Vide Morus, p. 263, n. 4. According 
to this view, Christ is presentln a supernatural 
way in the symbols, and in an entirely different 
manner from that in which, according to his 
promise, he is everywhere present with his 
disciples, until the end of the world. 

(c) After this period the idea became more 
and more current that communicants in partak- 
ing of the visible bread and wine also partake 
of the invisible body and blood of Christ. Es- 
pecially did this idea prevail after the fourth 
century. Thus, e. g., Gregory of Nyssa affirms, 
"that as the body of Christ, by his union with 
the Logos, was so changed and transformed as 
to become participator in his divine glory, so 
also the sacramental bread ds cfw/.ca tov ®sov 
Aoyou j u£T , arto£tT , at." Chrysostom and Cyril of 
Jerusalem also say that we must believe the 
divine declaration, that we receive the body 
and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, 
although this may seem to be opposed to the 
evidence of our senses. 

But although this doctrine seems to approach 
very nearly to transubstantiation, these fathers 
did not yet teach that there is any change of the 
elements by which they lose their own nature, 
and cease to be bread and wine; on the con- 
trary, they often taught in other passages that 
the elements retain their own natural properties, 
that when partaken of by us they become assi- 
milated to the nature of our bodies, that in the 
Supper we do. not receive the natural body of 
Christ, but only the significant signs of it, that 
we ought not to stop short with the mere sign, 
but to turn our thoughts to that which is signi- 
fied and imparted by it. There are many pas- 
sages of this import in the writings of Origen, 
of Augustine, Theodoret, and others. 

But in subsequent periods, the conceptions 
which prevailed on this subject, even in the 
2u2 ' 



510 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Grecian church, became more and more gross 
and sensual ; as appears from the writings of 
John of Damascus in the eighth century, and 
others. Still the opinion that the consecrated 
bread and wine lose their substance was not re- 
ceived in the Greek church ; nor is it known 
among them to the present day, although they 
employ the term /.Lt?a3o'kr ( to denote the change. 
Vide Kiesling, Hist. Concertationum Graecor. 
et Latinor. de Transubst. ; Leip. 1754. 

(3) History of this doctrine from the ninth to 
the sixteenth century in the Western church. 

It is known from Beda Venerabilis, that during 
the eighth century there were violent contests in 
the Western church respecting the manner of 
the presence of the body and blood of Christ in 
the Lord's Supper, and on the question how 
the elements are changed. And even at that 
time they began to give various explanations 
of the passages found in the writings of the 
earlier Latin and Greek fathers on this subject. 
After the ninth century, the tone and taste 
which began to prevail made it -certain that of 
different theories on any theological point, that 
which is the most gross and material would 
gain the predominance. 

It is no wonder, therefore, that the following 
opinion, first distinctly advocated by Paschasius 
Radbertus, a monk at Corvey, in the ninth cen- 
tury, should have received so general approba- 
tion — viz., "that after the consecration of the 
bread and wine nothing but their form remains, 
their substance being wholly changed, so that 
they are no longer bread and wine, but the body 
and blood of Christ. Their form continues, that 
no one may take offence at seeing Christians 
eatino- human flesh and blood." 

This doctrine was not, indeed, current at that 
time, for it caused much commotion, and was 
strongly opposed by the monk Ratramnus, and 
John Scotus Erigena, and many others. They 
did not. deny the presence of the body and blood 
of Christ ; but they taught that this conversio or 
immutalio of the bread and wine is not of a car- 
nal but a spiritual nature; that these elements 
are not transmuted into the real body and blood 
of Christ, but are signs or symbols of them. In 
many points they approximated to the opinion 
of the Reformed theologians. 

As yet the councils and popes had determined 
nothing on this subject. In the meanwhile the 
doctrine of Paschasius became more and more 
general during the tenth and eleventh centuries. 
When therefore Berengarius of Tours, in the 
eleventh century, attacked this doctrine, he was 
strongly resisted, and obliged to take back his 
opinion. He denied any transmutation of the 
elements; but maintained that the bread and 
wine are more than mere symbols, and that the 
body and blood of Christ are really present in 



the Lord's Supper. In short, he took a middle 
course between Paschasius and Scotus, and 
came very near, in the main points of his doc- 
trine, to the Lutheran hypothesis. Vide Les- 
sing's work, Berengarius von Tours; Braun- 
schweig, 1770, 4to. 

After the twelfth century the theory of Pas- 
chasius was further developed by the school- 
men, and carried out into its results. Even 
Peter of Lombardy, in the twelfth century, 
declared himself in behalf of this opinion, al- 
though he still speaks somewhat doubtfully 
respecting it. The inventor of the word tran- 
substantiatio is supposed to be Hildebert, Bishop 
of Mans, in the eleventh century. Before him, 
however, the phrase commutatio panis in sub' 
stantiam Christi had been used by Fulbert, 
Bishop of Chartres. This term became current 
in the twelfth century through the influence of 
Peter of Blois. It was not, however, until the 
thirteenth "century that this dogma became uni- 
versally prevalent in the Romish church. At 
the IV. Concilium Lateranense, 1215, under 
Pope Innocent III., it was established as the 
doctrine of the church, and confirmed by the 
Council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, in 
opposition to the protestants. According to this 
doctrine, this transmutation is produced by the 
sacerdotal consecration. Vide Calixtus, De Tran- 
substantiatione; Helmstadt, 1675. 

(4) Principal opinions respecting the manner 
of the presence of the body and blood of Christ 
in the sacramental elements, among the protestant 
theologians, since the Reformation. 

There were three forms of doctrine on this 
subject which for many centuries had prevailed 
in the Western church — viz., (a) the theory of 
transubstantiation, advanced by Paschasius Rad- 
bertus, which afterwards became the prevailing 
doctrine of the church ; (6) the theory, that the 
bread and wine are merely symbols of the body 
and blood of Christ, advocated principally by 
Joh. Scotus Erigena; (c) a theory which takes 
a middle course between the other two, main- 
taining that the body and blood of Christ are 
actually present in the sacramental elements, 
but without any transmutation of their sub- 
stance: supported by Berengarius in the ele- 
venth century. These theories continued, though 
under various modifications, after the sixteenth 
century, and were designated by the character- 
istic words, transubst ant iatio, figura, unio. The 
Greek church still adhered to its old word 
ustafiohvi. 

Both the German and Swiss reformers were 
agreed in rejecting the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation as wholly unfounded. In this too they 
were agreed, that the body and blood of Christ 
are really present in the sacramental elements, 
and are imparted to the communicant when ne 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 511 



partakes of the bread and wine; since Christ is 
near to all whom he counts his own, imparts 
himself to them, counsels and guides them. 

But in explaining the manner of this presence 
they differed from each other. Luther had a 
great attachment to many of the scholastic 
opinions and distinctions, and at first entertain- 
ed a very high idea of clerical power and the 
pre-eminence of the priesthood. He therefore 
retained the doctrine of the schoolmen, de pras- 
sentia reali et substantial^, in such a way, how- 
ever, as to exclude transubstantiation. His 
doctrine at first was, that "t«, with, and under 
(in, cum, and sub, terms which he took from 
Bernhard) the consecrated bread and wine, the 
true and essential body and blood of Christ are 
imparted to the communicant, and are received 
by him, although in a manner inexplicable by 
us, and altogether mysterious." He held, there- 
fore, that the body of Christ, which in its very 
essence is present in the sacred symbols, is re- 
ceived by the communicant, not spiritually 
merely, but (and here is the point of difference 
between him and the Swiss Reformers) realiter 
et substantialiter ,• so that both believing and 
unbelieving communicants partake of the real, 
substantial body and blood of Christ; the for- 
mer to their salvation, the latter to their con- 
demnation. The bread and wine are visibly 
and naturally received, the body and blood of 
Christ invisibly and supernaturally ; and this is 
the unio sacramentalis, such as takes place only 
in this sacrament. In one passage he explains 
this unio sacramentalis by the image of heated 
iron; and in employing this illustration, borders 
close upon the error of Cunsubstantiation. He 
says also that what the bread and wine do or 
suffer, the same is done or suffered by the body 
and blood of Christ — -they are broken, distri- 
buted, poured out, &c. By degrees, however, 
he abandoned these views, and was content 
with affirming the real presence of the body and 
blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, 
and with an indefinite manducatione orali. 

The doctrine of the Swiss theologians, on the 
contrary, as exhibited by Calvin, who in some 
respects modified the view of Zuingle, was this : 
"The body and blood of Christ are not, as to 
their substance, present in the sacramental ele- 
ments, but only as to power and effect; they are 
vere et efficaciter represented under the bread and 
wine; dari non substanliam corporis Christi in 
sacra ccena, sed omnia quse in suo corporc nobis 
bencfaia praestitit" Accordingly the body and 
blood of Christ are not present in space, and are 
not orally received by communicants, but spiri- 
tually, with a kind of manducatio spiritualis. 
Zuingle, however, maintained that the bread 
and wine are mere symbols of the body and 
blood of Christ, and seemed wholly to reject 
the idea of his real presence in these symbols. 



Many of the Reformed theologians did not, 
therefore, at first assent to Calvin's doctrine, 
and many, even subsequently, adhered to that 
of Zuingle. 

Calvin, then, designed to take a middle course 
between Luther and Zuingle. Luther appealed 
to the words in which this rite was instituted, 
especially to latl. He referred also to the di- 
vine omnipotence, by which the body of Christ 
might be made substantially present in many 
places at once. Cf. Morus, p. 266, s. 8. This 
was wholly denied by the Swiss theologians, 
as being contradictory. They contended, also, 
that there is no occasion or use for this substan- 
tial presence and communication of the body 
and blood of Christ, since it cannot contribute 
to make one more virtuous, pious, or holy. 
With regard to iati they remarked that, accord- 
ing to common use, even in the New Testa- 
ment, it often means to signify, shew forth, 
(vide s. 143 ;) and the subject here requires 
that it should be so understood, since otherwise 
Christ is made to say what is untrue. 

Luther, however, adhered to his opinion, es- 
pecially after it became the subject of contro- 
versy. Melancthon was more calm and impar- 
tial, and wished to promote peace between the 
two parties. He therefore took the ground, es- 
pecially after Luther's death, that it is better 
merely to affirm the presence and agency of 
Christ in the sacred symbols, without attempt- 
ing minutely to define and limit the manner of 
this presence. He was not favourable either to 
the prsesentia cojporalis Christi, or to the man- 
ducatio oralis, but only affirmed prseseniiara re- 
alem et efficacem Christi in sacra ccena. He 
therefore chose a middle way between Luther 
and Zuingle, and very nearly agreed with Cal- 
vin, who also pursued this middle course. 

Many of the more moderate Lutheran theolo- 
gians agreed with Melancthon, and seemed with 
him to incline to the side of Calvin. On the 
other hand, the zealots for the Lutheran theory 
insisted upon all the distinctions which Luther 
adopted, and even on some points went further 
than Luther himself. But in the electorate of 
Saxony the party of Melancthon became more 
and more numerous, and after his death the 
dreadful Crypto-Calvinistic controversies and 
persecutions broke out, (a. d. 1571.) 

These and other controversies and disorders 
in the Lutheran church, and the necessity of 
doing something to establish the Lutheran form 
of doctrine, led to the adoption of the Formula 
of Concord, in the year 1577, which w r as then 
made a standard of faith, and adopted as an au- 
thorized symbol. In this the most minute 
boundary lines are drawn between the theories 
of the Lutheran and the Reformed church, by 
applying the new distinctions introduced into 
the doctrine of the union of the two natures in 



512 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Christ, and the communicatlo idiomatum. Vide 
s. 103, II., and s. 104. The Lutheran theolo- 
gians of that period, especially Andrea, Chem- 
nitz, and their followers, endeavoured to shew, 
by the theory of the intimate union of the two 
natures in Christ, and the communicaiio idioma- 
tum resulting from it, how Christ, as God-man, 
might be everywhere present, even as to his 
bodily nature, and that therefore he might be 
present at the sacrament of the Supper, and 
might unite himself with the elements, and 
through them with the communicants, and thus 
act upon them. This doctrine was called ubi- 
quitatem corporis Christi, and the advocates of 
it were named contemptuously by their oppo- 
nents Ubiquitistx. The manner of the union of 
the body of Christ with the bread and wine was 
declared to be a mystery, (mysterium unionis 
sacramentalis.) And on this account the framers 
of the Formula of Concord would not decide po- 
sitively of what nature it is, but only negatively, 
what it is not. It is not a personal union, as it 
is explained to be by many of the older fathers, 
(vide No. 2,) nor is it consubstantiatio ,■ still less 
is it a union in which a change of the substance 
is effected, (transubstantiatio ,•) nor is it a union 
in which the body and blood of Christ are in- 
cluded in the bread and wine, {impanatio ,-) but 
of an entirely different nature from any of these 
mentioned, and one which exists only in this sa- 
crament, and therefore called sacramentalis. Cf. 
Plank, Geschichte des Protestantischen Lehrbe- 
griff's bis zur Einfuhrungder Concordienformel. 
But these fine distinctions established in the 
Formula of Concord were never universally 
adopted in the Lutheran church. And espe- 
cially in those places where this formula had 
no symbolic authority were its subtleties re- 
jected. Many of the Lutheran theologians are 
more inclined to the moderate theory of Melanc- 
thon, or rather, have approximated towards it. 
Morus truly remarks (p. 268, n. A.) that the 
whole theory established in the Formula of 
Concord respecting the omnipresence of the hu- 
man nature of Christ, from the union of natures 
in his person, is justo subtilior. 

II. Critical Remarks on these different Hypotheses. 

(1) All the different theories here stated are 
attended with difficulties. Transubstantiation 
contradicts the testimony of our senses, and has 
no scriptural authority, since these symbols are 
called in the scriptures bread and wine, and are 
therefore supposed to have the substance of bread 
and wine. 

With regard to Luther's theory, there is the 
difficulty above mentioned, that there appears to 
be no object or use in the substantial or corpo- 
real presence of Christ; though this objection 
in itself is by no means decisive, since there are 
many things whose utility we cannot under- 



stand which are yet useful. But besides this, 
there are other objections to the Lutheran theory. 
If the substantial body and blood of Christ are 
present in the sacramental elements, and are 
received by the communicants, how, it might be 
asked, 

(a) Could Christ, at the institution of the 
Supper, give his real body to his disciples to be 
eaten by them, and his real blood to be drunken 
by them, while they saw this body before their 
eyes, and he, yet alive, sat with them at table ? 

{b) How can the body of Christ be present, 
as to its very substance, in more than one place 
at the same time 1 ? and what object is answered 
by such a supposition 1 The conclusions de- 
duced from the doctrine of the union of natures 
afford no satisfactory answer to these questions. 

(c) How can the theory of the substantial 
presence of the body and blood of Christ, and of 
their being eaten and drunken by communicants, 
be reconciled with the words in which this sup- 
per was instituted] For Christ did not speak 
of his body then living upon the earth, which 
they saw before their eyes, and of the blood 
flowing in it; still less of his glorified body in 
heaven, but of his body slain on the cross, (vrtsp 
v/xav 8iB6!j.bvov,) and of his blood there shed, 
(al,ua txzvvopLsvov.) If, therefore, the substan- 
tial and corporeal presence of Christ were meant, 
it must be the substance of that martyred body 
and of that perishable blood. But in this case 
we cannot understand how either of these can 
be still present, and imparted to communicants. 

Difficulties of this nature induced Melancthon, 
as has been before remarked, to modify the Lu- 
theran doctrine, and to adopt a theory less repul- 
sive. But the theory of Calvin, though it ap- 
pears to be so easy and natural, is also attended 
with difficulties ; for even he admits of the pre- 
sence of the body and blood of Christ, only not 
as to their substance, but, according to his view, 
believers alone receive the body and blood of 
Christ. But as soon as I admit that the body 
of Christ is present to believers only, this cannot 
be reconciled with 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, as the op- 
ponents of Calvin have always remarked. 

The better way, therefore, in exhibiting either 
the Lutheran or Calvinistic doctrine, is, to avoid 
these subtleties, and merely take the general 
position, that Christ, as man and as the Son of 
God, may exert his agency, may act wherever, 
and in whatever manner he pleases. He therefore 
may exert his power at his table as well as else- 
where. This is perfectly scriptural, (vide s. 98 
and s. 143, ad finem ;) and it is also the sense 
and spirit of the protestant theory. And this 
doctrine respecting the nearness of Christ, his 
assistance and strengthening influence, in his pre- 
sent exalted state, secures eminently that proper 
inward enjoyment which Lutheran and Reform- 
ed Christians, and even catholics, with all their 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 513 



diversity of speculation on this point, may have 
alike in the Lord's Supper. Christ, when he was 
about to leave the world, no more to be seen by 
his followers with the mortal eye, left them this 
Supper as a visible pledge of his presence, his 
protection, and love. 

(2) There are some theologians who think that 
the whole doctrine respecting the presence of 
Chiistis destitute of proof, and is derived merely 
from the misunderstanding of the passage, 1 
Cor. xi., and from the false interpretation of it 
given by the fathers. Their hypotheses, it is 
said, have not been sufficiently examined, but 
have been too credulously admitted, and other 
theories have been built upon them, after they 
had been previously assumed as true. This opi- 
nion might be called the Pelagian theory ; not 
because it can be shewn that it was held by Pe- 
lagius himself, but because it has been usually 
adopted by those who are of the Pelagian way 
of thinking respecting the influences of grace. 
On this subject, vide Art. xii. They contend 
that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are 
merely reminded of Christ, especially of his body 
offered and his blood shed on our account. Ac- 
cording to this view, his body and his blood, 
while we thus commemorate his death, are pre- 
sent to our thoughts, in the same figurative way 
as the body of a deceased friend or benefactor 
may be present to our minds when we are think- 
ing of him. This view is contrary to the New 
Testament; for it comes to nothing more than a 
mere remembrance of Christ, and an assistance 
from him, improperly so called. Vide s. 98. 

They go on to say that Paul, indeed, in 1 Cor. 
xi. 27, 29, uses the words ow^a xo.1 al ( ua 'KpiGtov 
with reference to this ordinance ; but that he does 
not affirm that the communicant eats the body or 
drinks the blood of Christ, but merely the bread 
and wine, ver. 28 ; and that although the ancient 
Christians sometimes spoke as if the body and 
blood of Christ were really received by commu- 
nicants, (as was very natural, in accordance with 
John, vi.,) yet the same is true here which was 
spoken by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. iii. 16,) Cum 
fruges Cererem, vinum Liberum dicimus, (pa- 
nem, corpus Christi, vinum, sanguinem Christi,) 
genere nos quidem sermonis uiimur usitatu ,■ sed 
quern tarn amentem esseputas, qui illud, quo vcsca- 
tur, Deum (corpus Christi) credat esse? 

The difficulties in the way of this Pelagian 
theory, whtch leaver the Lord's Supper a mere 
ceremony, are stated by Morus, p. 267, note 5. 
He shews very clearly that this theory is not in 
the spirit of the other Christian ordinances. Cf. 
Storr on this article, in his System. The attempts 
of many modern writers who have discussed this 
point (those, e. g., cited by Morus, p. 266, s. 7, 
in the note) come to the same thing ; for to many 
of them the doctrine of the nearness of Christ 
and his assistance — i. e., of his uninterrupted 
65 



activity in behalf of his followers, is extremely 
repugnant, because they do not see how they 
can reconcile it with their philosophical hypo- 
theses, which, however, are wholly baseless. 
But this doctrine is clearly taught in the holy 
scriptures, and is one of the fundamental truths 
of apostolical antiquity. 

(3) Many moderate protestant theologians are 
now of opinion that nothing was plainly and de- 
finitely settled by Jesus and the apostles respect- 
ing the manner of the presence of the body and 
blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and 
that this doctrine cannot therefore be regarded as 
essential, but rather as problematical. Formerly 
this doctrine, relating merely to the manner of 
thi,s presence, was regarded as a fundamental 
article of faith ; hence each of the contending 
parties adhered zealously to its own theory, re- 
garding it as the only scriptural one, and looking 
upon all who thought differently as heretics. 
This was the cause of that unhappy and lasting 
division which took place in the sixteenth century 
between two churches which agreed on funda- 
mental doctrines, and which ought mutually to 
have tolerated their disagreement on this parti- 
cular point. So judged Melancthon, and disap- 
proved of the violent controversies of his age. 
Even in his learned writings he passed briefly 
over topics of this nature, and assigns as the 
reason of his not going more deeply into them, 
" ut a qusestionibus illis juventutem ahducerem." 

Speculations respecting the manner of the pre- 
sence of the body and blood of Christ have not 
the least influence upon the nature or the efficacy 
of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian needs 
to know is, the object and the uses of this rite, 
and to act accordingly. Vide s. 145. He must 
therefore believe from the heart that Christ died 
for him ; that now in his exalted state he is still 
active in providing for his welfare ; and that hence 
it becomes him to approach the Lord's table with 
feelings of the deepest reverence and most grate- 
ful love to God and to Christ. Upon this every- 
thing depends, and this makes the ordinance 
truly edifying and comforting in its influence. 
These benefits may be derived from this ordi- 
nance by all Christians; and to all who have 
true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have 
its proper effect in awakening attention to the 
great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, 
divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever 
theory respecting it they may adopt, — the Lu- 
theran, Calvinistic, or even the Roman-catholic 
transubstantiation, gross as this error is. 

It is obvious, then, that all subtle speculation 
respecting the manner of the presence of the body 
and blood of Christ should have no place in po- 
pular instruction, but should be confined to 
learned and scientific theology. In the present 
state of things, however, these disputed points 
cannot be wholly omitted in public teaching. 



514 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



But the wise teacher will skilfully shew that he 
does not regard these as the principal points in 
this doctrine, according to the views just given ; 
in such a way, however, that even the weak will 
not be offended. It will be best for teachers, in 
the practical exhibition of the theory of the Lu- 
theran and Reformed churches, to proceed on the 
principle before laid down — viz., "that Christ, 
in his present state of exaltation, as God and man, 
can exert his power when and where he pleases ; 
and that, as he has promised to grant his presence, 
his gracious nearness and assistance to his true 
followers till the end of the world, they may 
rejoice in the belief that it will be especially 
vouchsafed to them during this solemn festival 
in commemoration of him." This principle is 
wholly scriptural. 



ARTICLE XV. 



ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DES- 
TINY OF MEN AFTER DEATH; OR THE DOC- 
TRINE RESPECTING THE LAST THINGS. 



SECTION CXLVII. 

OF DEATH. 

I. Different Descriptions and Names of Death. 

(1) No logical definition of death has been 
generally agreed upon. This point was much 
contested in the seventeenth century by the Car- 
tesian and other theologians and philosophers. 
Since death can be regarded in various points of 
view, the descriptions of it mustnecessarily vary. 
If we consider the state of a dead man, as it 
strikes the senses, death is the cessation of natural 
life. If we consider the cause of death, we may 
place it in that permanent and entire cessation 
of the feeling and motion of the body which re- 
sults from the destruction of the body. Among 
theologians, death is commonly said to consist 
in the separation of soul and body, implying that 
the soul still exists when the body perishes. 
Among the ecclesiastical fathers, Tertullian (De 
Anima, c. 27) gives this definition: Mors — dis- 
junct™ corporis animxque ; vita — conjunctio cor- 
poris animaeque. Cicero (Tusc. i.) defines death, 
disccssus animi a. corporc. The passage, Heb. 
iv. 12, is sometimes cited on this subject, but 
has nothing to do with it. Death does not con- 
sist in this separation, but this separation is the 
consequence of death. As soon as the body 
loses feeling and motion, it is henceforth use- 
less to the soul, which is therefore separated 
fiom it. 

(2) Scriptural representations, names, and 
modes of speech respecting de? 4 ~. 



(a) One of the most common in the Old Tes- 
tament is, to return to the dust, or to the earth. 
Hence the phrase, the dust of death. It is 
founded on the description, Gen. ii. 7, and iii. 
19, and has been explained in s. 52, 75. The 
phraseology denotes the dissolution and destruc- 
tion of the body. Hence the sentiment in Eccies. 
xii. 7, "The body returns to the earth, the spirit 
to God." 

(b) A withdrawing exhalation, or removal of 
the breath of life. Vide Ps. civ. 29. Hence 
the common terms, oi^xs, rtapeSaxe to rtvBvua, 
reddidit animam, iZirtvEvasv, exspiravit, &c. 

(c) A removal from the body, a being absent 
from the body, a departure from it, &c. This 
description is founded on the comparison of the 
body with a tent or lodgment in which the soul 
dwells during this life. Death destroys this tent 
or house, and commands us to travel on. Vide 
Job, iv. 21 ; Is. xxxviii. 12 ; Ps. Iii. 7, where see 
my Notes. Whence Paul says, 2 Cor. v. 1, the 
ertiyiiog tfliuv oixca tov oxqvovs will be de- 
stroyed ; and Peter calls death drtd^fcjts tov 
axrjvutuatos, 2 Pet. i. 13, 14. Classical writers 
speak of the soul in the same manner, as xat at- 
xr t vovv ev t p crtowa-r't. They call the body ox-^voc,. 
So Hippocrates and iEschines. 2 Cor. v. 8, 9, 
ix8rjiJv/]GM ix tov 6u>uato$. 

(d) Paul likewise uses the term ix8vsa^fao in 
reference to death, 2 Cor. v. 3, 4; because the 
body is represented as the garment of the soul, 
as Plato calls it. The soul, therefore, as long 
as it is in the body, is clothed ; and as soon as 
it is disembodied, is naked. 

(e) The terms which denote sleep are applied 
frequently in the Bible, as everywhere else, to 
death. Ps. lxxvi. 7; Jer. Ii. 39; John, xi. 13, 
et seq. Nor is this language used exclusively 
for the death of the pious, as some pretend, 
though this is its prevailing use. Homer calls 
sleep and death twin brothers, Iliad, xvi. 672. 
The terms also which signify to lie down, t& 
rest, (e. g, 2yj, occumbere,) also denote death. 

(/) Death is frequently compared with and 
named from a departure, a going away. Hence 
the verba eundi, abeundi, discedendi, signify, to 
die ; Job, x. 21 ; Ps. xxxix. 4. The case is the 
same with vrtdyco and rtopsvofiao in the New 
Testament, Matt. xxvi. 24, and even among 
the classics. In this connexion we may men- 
tion thf> terms avaCkveiv and woftjvttos, Phil. i. 
23 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6, which do not mean dissolution, 
but discessus. Cf. Luke, xii. 3G. Vide Wet- 
stein on Phil. 1. 

Note — We have before remarked, in the Ar- 
ticle respecting Sin, that death, when personi- 
fied, is described as a ruler and tyrant, having 
vast power and a great kingdom, over which 
he reigns. But the ancients also represented it 
under some figures, which are not common 
among us. W r e represent it as a man with a 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 515 



scythe, or as a skeleton, &c. ; but the Jews 
before the exile frequently represented death as 
a hunter, who lays snares for men ; Ps. xviii. 
5, 6; xci. 3. After the exile they represented 
him as a man, or sometimes as an angel, (the 
angel of death,) with a cup of poison, which he 
reaches to men. From this representation ap- 
pears to have arisen the phrase, which occurs 
in the New Testament, to taste death, Matt. xvi. 
■25; Heb. ii. 9; which, however, in common 
speech, signifies merely to die, without remind- 
ing one of the origin of the phrase. The case 
is the same with the phrase to see death, Ps. 
lxxxix. 49 ; Luke, ii. 26. 

II. Scriptural senses of the words " death''' and " to 
die" and the Theological distinctions to which 
they have given rise. 

(1) Death frequently denotes the end or the 
destruction of everything. It is therefore applied 
to countries and cities which perish. The inha- 
bitants of them are compared with dead men. 
The restoration of them is compared with resur- 
rection from the dead. So Isaiah, xxvi. 19, 20; 
Ezek. iii. 7, seq. 

(2) Hence arise the figurative modes of 
speech, to he dead to anything, as to the law, to 
sin, &c. ; Gal. ii. 19; Rom. vi. 2, 5, &c. 

(3) But this term is used with great frequency 
in a moral sense — e. g., to be dead to all good- 
ness, to be dead to sin — i. e., to be disqualified 
for all goodness by the sin reigning within us, 
Ephes. ii. 1, 5; v. 14. Likewise the opposite, 
to live, to be alive for goodness — i. e., to be active 
in virtue and capable of performing it. (Mors 
et vita spiritualis et moralis.) 

(4) Death is conceived to be the substance 
and sum of all misery ; and the punishment of 
death as the severest punishment. Accordingly, 
death denotes (a) every unhappy condition in 
which human beings are placed, as to body and 
soul. The opposite, life, denotes we fare, prospe- 
rity, Ezek. xviii. 32;xxxiii. 11; Rom. vii. 10, 13. 
(b) Punishments, as the unhappy consequences 
of the transgression of the law. In this sense, 
wis is frequently used in Syriac and Chaldee, 
and death in the New Testament ; Rom. i. 32 ; 
I John, iii. 14 ; James, v. 20. (e) The Jews 
called the punishments of the lost in hell the 
second death — i. e., the death of the soul, which 
follows that of the body. Traces of this use 
are found in Philo, in the Chaldaic paraphrases 
of the Old Testament, and very frequently among 
the Rabbins. In this sense is 6 8sv?£po$ $dva?o$ 
used in Rev. ii. 11 ; xx. 6, 14; xxi. 8. Vide 
Wetstein on Rev. ii. So, too, bta^poj, an^Kua, 
x. t. \. 

From these various senses of the word death 
theologians have taken occasion to introduce the 
division of death into temporal or bodily, spiri- 
tual, (by which is meant a state of sin and in- 



[ capacity for virtue,) and eternal, (the punish- 
I ments of eternity.) The latter is what is other- 
i wise called the second death, mors stcunda, cujiu 
| nulla est finis, as Augustine remarks. Vide s. 
! 79, No. 2. The Bible, too, gives the name of 
, death (mors spiritualis) to the state of sin, inas- 
: much as it is (a) an unhappy state, and (6) a 
state which incapacitates sinners for all good- 
ness. Hence sinners are said, Ephes. ii. 5; 
Col. ii. 13, to be vsxpoi h Ttapartrw.ucw, partly 
because they are unhappy in consequence of 
sin, (vide the opposite,) and partly because 
they are dead to all goodness, or are incapaci- 
tated for it. Hence, too, those sinners who are 
secure, ignorant, and regardless of the misery 
and danger of their situation, are said to sleep 
or to dream, Jude, ver. 8, (twrtviaZo/xsvoi.) 

m. The Universality or Unavoidalleness of Death, • 
also a Consideration of the Question, whether 
Death is the Punishment of Sin, and how far it 
is so. 

(1) Death is universal and inevitable. None 
I in the present state are excepted. This is the 

uniform declaration of scripture. Ps. xlix. 

i 8—12 ; lxxxix. 49 ; Rom. v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 

I Heb. ix. 27. Christ himself was not excepted 
from this general lot of mortality, (though he 
submitted to it of his own accord,) John, x. 17, 
18; since Paul declares, Heb. ii. 14, seq., that 
he became man, that he might be able to die for 
our good. 

Some exceptions to this general lot are men- 
tioned in scripture, (a) In ancient times, 
Enoch, of whom it was said, Gen. <v. 24, that 
God took him, because he led a pious life. Some 
of the fathers incorrectly understood this pas- 
sage to mean, that he died. Cf. Heb. xi. 5. 
Elias is another exception, 2 Kings, ii. 11. Si- 
milar narratives are found among the Greeks 
and Romans, from which we learn that it was 
a common notion among the ancient people that 
men who were especially beloved by the Deity 
were removed from earth to heaven alive, or 
after their death, (b) In future limes. Those 
who are alive at the day of judgment, according 
to Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 51, coll. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 
shall not die, ( x out t^wt at,) but shall be 
changed (cb.Xayr sovtai) — i. e., their body, with- 
out previous dissolution, (death.) shall be en- 
nobled by a simple renovation or change; since 
this mortal body is incapable of the enjoyment f 
of heavenly blessedness; ver. 50, 53, 54, coll. 
2 Cor. v. 2 — 4. nf r pfifoiClHi olxt^ptop £% ovpcuov, 
(to be clothed.) 

(2) The mortality of the human body is ex- 
pressly derived in the record of Moses, Gen. ii. 
17, also chap. iii.. from the taste of the forbid- 
den fruit, or of the poisonous tree. It was by 
this means that our first parents themselves be- 
came mortal, and thus propagated iheir disor- 



516 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



dered and dying bodies to all their posterity. 
Vide s. 74, 75, 78. The universality and un- 
avoidableness of death is therefore, according 
to the scriptures, the result and consequence of 
the transgression of the first parents of the hu- 
man race. And so, in all cases, the Bible de- 
rives death from the sin of the first man. Rom. 
v. 12, "Through one man came sin into the 
world, and death by sin, and so death became 
universal among men, (stj 7tdvta$ di^pioTtouj 
fttijfxde.)" 1 Cor. xv. 21. 

Here the question is thrown out, whether the 
death of the posterity of Adam is to be regarded 
as the punishment of his sin? To this the an- 
swer commonly given by theologians is, that 
with regard to the wicked, death is to be re- 
garded in the light of a punishment, but not with 
regard to the pious, but that to them, on the 
contrary, it is a benefit. Since as the latter are, 
by means of death, translated into a more happy 
condition, it must be looked upon as a benefit 
as far as they are concerned ; and so the scrip- 
ture represents it. Vide s. 148. Still (a) death 
does not cease to be a great evil, in itself consi- 
dered, to the whole human race, and even to the 
pious. Hence Paul denominates it o f^&pos, 1 
Cor. xv. 26; and considers it one of the cala- 
mities befalling our race, with regard to which 
even the pious man cannot be indifferent. He 
says expressly, 2 Cor. v. 4, that even to the 
Christian it is no pleasant thing to be unclothed 
— i. e., stripped of his body by death ; but that 
he would rather be clothed upon — i. e., be in- 
vested with his heavenly body immediately, 
without the intervention of death, (i) When 
it is said that death, in the posterity of Adam, 
is the punishment which they must undergo on 
account of his transgression, the term punish- 
ment is used in that general sense in which it 
is employed in common life, and often in the 
scriptures. But if it be taken in the strict phi- 
losophical sense, (in which punishment always 
presupposes personal guilt,) death can be proper- 
ly called the punishment of sin only in reference 
to our first parents themselves; with regard to 
others, it is indeed the consequence and result of 
the sin of our first parents, but not properly its 
punishment. Vide s. 7G, III., s. 78, III. 3, &c. 
This was remarked by many of the church fa- 
thers, especially before the time of Augustine ; 
and they therefore objected to calling the death 
of the posterity of Adam the punishment of sin. 
Vide s. 79, No. 1, 2. (c) When it is said of 
Christ that he frees or redeems men from (bo- 
dily) death, the meaning is, that men owe it to 
him, in general, that the terrors of death are 
mitigated with regard to those who believe on 
him; and in particular, that our bodies are re- 
stored at the resurrection. Cf. John, xi. 25, 
26. This is what is meant by the redcmtio a 
rnorte corporali per Christum^ s. 120, coll. s. Ill, 



II. 1. From the necessity itself of dying we 
could not be freed, unless God should produce 
an entirely new race of men. Cf. Cotta, Theses 
Theologicae de Novissimis, Speciatim de Morte 
Naturali ; Tubingen, 1762. [Also the treatise 
of Dr. Wm. Bates, " On the Four Last Things," 
and particularly on Death," chap. iii. and iv. — 

Tr.] 

section cxlviii. 

OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CONTINU- 
ANCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL, AND ITS STATE 
AFTER DEATH. 

It is the doctrine of Christ that the life of 
man is not bounded by this earthly state, but 
that, although he does not exist solely for the 
future, his life extends into eternity. The ge- 
neral doctrine of the Bible respecting the desti- 
nation of man, as a rational and moral being, 
has been already exhibited in the Article on the 
Creation of Man, s. 51, II.; and it was there 
shewn to be holiness, and temporal and eternal 
happiness standing in the most intimate con- 
nexion with it. The superiority of our know- 
ledge of the state of man after death, in compa- 
rison with that possessed by the ancient world, 
is not to be ascribed so much to the progress of 
science as to the work of Christ, and the influ- 
ence of the Christian doctrine. Those who 
lived before Christ were not indeed wholly des- 
titute of knowledge respecting this important 
truth ; indeed, many heathens, both before and 
after the time of Christ, suggested very import- 
ant arguments in behalf of immortality; still 
they were unable to attain to anything more 
than a high degree of probability on this subject. 
Vide s. 149. Every impartial man must concede 
that Christ has high claims to gratitude for what 
he has done in relation to this subject, even if he 
does not allow that he has disclosed anything 
new with regard to the future state of man. 

(1) He has connected this truth most inti- 
mately with the other practical truths of religion, 
and referred all the rest to this in such a man- 
ner as no teacher before him ever did. And 
now, any one who acknowledges the divine 
authority of Christ, and of the Christian reli- 
gion, obtains a satisfactory certainty respecting 
this doctrine, which at best can be rendered only 
highly probable by the light of nature. And 
from believing this doctrine, all religion comes 
to possess for him a new interest; and he finds 
in it the greatest consolation in sufferings and 
hardships of all kinds — the most effectual en- 
couragement to holiness, and the greatest dis- 
suasive from sin. 

Note. — The strongest philosophical proofs in 
behalf of immortality are derived from the im- 
possibility of reconciling the destruction of the 
whole man with the object of his existence, and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 617 



with the divine attributes. Vide s. 149. But 
a satisfactory certainty on this subject, and a 
conviction of the truth of immortality raised 
above all doubt, cannot be attained in this way. 
For the simple fact that we, by our reason, can- 
not reconcile any two things, does not prove 
that they are irreconcilable; nor can we con- 
clude as to the reality of anything, merely from 
the fact that it is to be wished for by us. Cf. 
Seneca, who says, Ep. 102, Philosophi rem 
hanc gratissimam promittunt, magis quam 

PROBANT. 

(2) By the plain instruction which Christ 
has given respecting this subject, and the obvi- 
ous reasons he has adduced for it, he has made 
it universally intelligible, and in a very high 
degree comprehensible, even by the great mass 
of mankind. He has done this especially by 
the connexion in which he has placed it with 
the history of his own person, by which every- 
thing is rendered more obvious, and receives a 
greater and more lively interest. Vide s. 120. 
Hence the remark of Paul, 2 Tim. i. 10, is very 
true, that Christ by his doctrine has taken away 
the power of death, so that it is no more to be 
feared ; he has made us certain of blessedness, 
and for the first time placed the doctrine of eter- 
nal life (£wi7 xau ou^apcaa) in a clear light (fyutt- 
<ja$). Cf. Einiges, Ueber das Verdienst der 
christlichen Religion um die Lehre von der 
Unsterblichkeit der Seele ; Flensburg und Leip- 
zig, 1788, 8vo. 

The following are the chief points of Chris- 
tian instruction respecting the life of the soul 
after death: — 

I. Scripture Proof of Immortality, and what is 
implied in it. 

In death, the body only dies; but the soul 
survives the body, and lives on uninterruptedly, 
and is immortal. Here belongs the text, Matt. 
x. 28, where Christ says that tyrants and per- 
secutors have power only over the body, and 
can kill that only, but have no power to kill the 
soul, over which God alone has rule and power. 
Again, Luke, xvi. 19, the parable of the rich 
man and Lazarus, ver. 22, 23, seq. ; Luke, xx. 
38, "God is not a God of the dead, but of the 
living." Also many passages in John, in which 
Jesus promises an immortality, and that too of 
blessedness, to his true followers, and assures 
them that in death their souls shall not perish — 
e. g., John, v. 24 ; viii. 51 ; chap. xi. ; xii. 24 — 
26 ; xiv. 2, 3, where he says that in his father's 
house there are many mansions, and that, he 
was £oing to prepare a place for them, and to 
bring them thither unto himself, (by death.) 
Cf. the promise given to the malefactor on the 
cross, Luke, xxiii. 43. 

But he always connects this doctrine with 
that respecting his own person. He it is to 



whom we are indebted for this truth ; without 
him we should not have had it. He is the pur- 
chaser and the giver of life, and of a blessed 
immortality ; whoever believes in him, although 
he may die, yet lives ; John, xi. 25, 26. With 
this the doctrine of the apostles agrees. Vide 
2 Cor. v. 1—10; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 13, 
seq.; Phil. i. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 6, departed Chris- 
tians (vsxpoi,) are regarded by men as evil-doers, 
and as miserable persons, who have been justly 
persecuted and punished; but their spirit is 
introduced by God into a happy life. So Matt. 
x. 28. 

It pertains essentially to the immortality of 
the soul that our self-consciousness will remain, 
and that we shall then have the conviction that 
our state after death is the consequence of the 
life that now is; as the parable, Luke, xvi. 22, 
seq., plainly shews. Cf. Luke, xx. 27, and 
John, viii. 56, 'AjSpaafc. — sldk Tfr t v yjuepav Tfrjv 
eur;v, xai e%dp^. Cf. also 2 Cor. v. 8, 9, and 
the other texts cited by Morus, s. 2, note. 

The doctrine respecting the sleep cf the soul 
does not agree with the declarations of Christ, 
and is directly opposed to them. Some have 
maintained that the soul after death remains, for 
a time at least, in a state of insensibility and 
unconsciousness, which they compare with 
sleep. Vide s. 150, where some of the texts to 
which they appeal are examined. They sup- 
pose that it is first awakened from this sleep at 
the last day, when it is reunited to the body. 
The state in which they suppose the soul to be 
in the meantime is called kthargus, and those 
who hold this doctrine are called vrtvo^vxi'tal^ 
and those who wholly deny the immortality of 
the soul, ^v%07tavvvzitai. They support their 
doctrine in part by an appeal to some figurative 
representations in the holy scriptures respecting 
the kingdom of the dead, by which it is set forth 
as the land of silence, darkness, and forgetful- 
ness; and in part by the common experience 
that our souls do not feel and receive sensations 
except through the body and the organs of sense, 
and that when the brain is injured, conscious- 
ness and memory often wholly disappear. To 
this it is justly objected, that it is impossible to 
conclude, without the greatest fallacy, merely 
from the present constitution of man, in which 
soul and body are intimately connected, how it 
will be hereafter, when the soul and body shall 
have been entirely separated. 

Christ and the apostles held no principles 
that could lead to the doctrine of the sleep of the 
soul. They rather regarded the earthly body 
which we inherit as the nearest spring and 
source of human depravity, and of the sins aris- 
ing from it, and of all consequent pain and mi- 
sery. Vide s. 77, II. According to this doc- 
trine we obtain by death a release from many 
sufferings; the disembodied spirit can exert its 
2X 



blS 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



energies more freely than before, and enters 
upon a far greater and wider sphere of action. 
Cf. Rom. viii. 23, aXoXytpua^ tov oufiato$, 
Rom. vii. 5, 18, 23, 24, 6u>/xa ^avdtov, 1 John, 
iii. 2. Vigilantius, in the fifth century, was ac- 
cused, though unjustly, by Hieronymus, of 
holding this opinion respecting the sleep of the 
soul. In the twelfth century it was condemned 
by Innocent III. In the sixteenth century it 
was advocated again by some anabaptists and 
Socinians, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries, by Christopher Artobe, John Heyn, 
and others. 

II. The Connexion of the Life to Come with the 
Present. 

On this point, Christ and the apostles teach, 

(1) That the life after death is an immediate 
continuation of the present life. The soul is 
not altered in death, but takes along with it its 
dispositions, its habits, and whole tendency, 
into the future world. The life to come, taken 
in connexion with the present, make together 
one whole, even as manhood is only the conti- 
nuation of youth. Morus justly observes, tenore 
conlinuo nectifinem vitw et initia futurse sortis. 

(2) That the life to come is to be regarded as 
the consequence of the present, since the conse- 
quences of all our present dispositions, inclina- 
tions, and actions, continue there. Death de- 
termines the destiny of men in the future world. 
It is here that man lays the foundation either 
for his future happiness or misery ; this is the 
state of probation, that of retribution. All this 
is taught in the New Testament, sometimes 
literally, and at other times figuratively — e. g., 
it is sometimes represented under the image of 
sowing and reaping, a contest, and the crowning, 
&c. Vide Luke, xvi. 25; Hebrews, ix. 27; 
Rom. ii. 5—12; 2 Cor. iv. 7; v. 10; 1 Tim. 
vi. 18, 19; Gal. vi. 7, 10, "What a man sows, 
that shall he also reap ; he that follows his 
carnal appetites shall reap <^opay ; the pious 
Christian, ^w/jv aiuwov." 

III. The Intermediate State between Death and the 
Judgment. 

The restoration of the body (the raising of 
the dead) will not take place until the end of 
the world, the last day of the present constitu- 
tion of things — a period which no one knows 
beforehand. Vide s. 151, seq. And then will 
every one, for the first time, receive the full 
measure of reward or punishment allotted him, 
according to his conduct in the present life. 
Vide Luke, x. 12; Rom. ii. 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 10. 

Before this time shall arrive, the disembodied 
spirit will be in a certain intermediate state. 
The exact nature of this state is not indeed par- 
ticularly described to us, and we are unable 



even to conceive of it distinctly; but so much 
the Bible plainly teaches, that immediately 
after death the soul passes into that state for 
which, from the nature of its previous life, it is 
prepared. Immediately after death, retribution 
begins ; the pious are happy, and the wicked 
miserable, each in exact proportion to his feel- 
ings and actions. Vide Luke, xvi. 22 — 25, 
(the parable respecting Lazarus.) This truth, 
too, is always placed by Christ himself and his 
apostles in intimate connexion with his own 
person — e. g., Luke, xxiii. 43, " To day shalt 
thou be with me in paradise." Phil. i. 23, 
avaXvaai xal cvv Xptcffc^ slvai ', 2 Cor. V. 8, tx- 
8r]U7]Ga(, ix tov Oio/xato^, xal ivbr^'X'/jaai, rtpoj ?bv 
Kvptov. . 

In what the rewards and punishments of this 
intermediate state will consist cannot be deter- 
mined, nor whether, in addition to those which 
are natural — the necessary consequences of ac- 
tion and feeling, — there will also be, even then, 
those which are positive and result from the free 
appointment of God. As to those who are lost, 
the Bible teaches us only this, that their pu- 
nishment — their whole state of misery — will 
commence immediately after death; Luke, xvi. 
22, seq. And for this we have the analogy of 
w r hat the New Testament teaches respecting 
the miserable intermediate state of the evil spi- 
rits, which will last until the day of judgment, 
2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude, 7. Vide s. 63. For the fate 
of lost men is described as one and the same 
with that of evil spirits. Vide Matthew, xxv. 
41. On the other hand, the happy intermediate 
state of the pious commences also immediately 
after death. The texts in proof of this are cited 
by Morus, p. 289, s. 1, note 2. Their blessed- 
ness is likened to that of the holy angels ; hence 
they are called by Jesus himself icrayyeTtot, 
Luke, xx. 36. 

Since, now, the destiny of man is decided im- 
mediately after death, and since among men 
such a decision is usually made by a judgment 
and sentence, there is no more proper way of re- 
presenting this arrangement of God with re- 
spect to the future destiny of men than by com- 
paring it with a judgment, since it has the 
same effect as a formal judgment. This has 
given occasion to the division of judgment into 
particular or preceding (judicium particulare, 
or antecedens), which denotes nothing more 
than the determining of the fate of men imme- 
diately after death ; and universal or subsequent, 
(judicium universale, or consequens.} It is re- 
specting the former that Paul speaks, Heb. ix. 
27, "It is appointed to all men once to die, 
fxita 8s tovto xpCoi" — i. e., then follows the 
determination of their destiny, whether it shall 
be happy or miserable. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 10. The 
Pharisees also, according to Josephus, (Antiq. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. m 



2.viii. 2,) taught that the soul is immortal, and 
after death is judged under the earth, and re- 
warded or punished according- to its works. 

According to the doctrine of the New Testa- 
ment, therefore, there is no third place, or me- 
dium, between heaven and hell, or between 
being- happy and miserable, althoug-h there are 
very different degrees both of the one and of the 
other. The intermediate condition of which 
we have spoken must not be understood to im- 
ply anything like this. Still an opinion like 
this got footing very early in the Christian 
church. Vide s. 150. And this gave rise to the 
custom of praying for the dead, since men were 
foolish enough to imagine that there is room to 
obtain an alteration in the yet undecided destiny 
of departed spirits, while in truth their destiny 
must depend solely upon their own actions 
during the present life. This custom had be- 
come very general in the fourth century, and 
was at that time opposed by Aerius, presbyter 
of Pontus, as we learn from the testimony of 
Epiphanius, (Haer. 75,) who is very indignant 
against him on this account. It was also op- 
posed by the Spanish presbyter, Vigilantius, in 
the fifth century, in reply to whom Hieronymus 
wrote a violent book. This doctrine was after- 
wards brought into connexion with that respect- 
ing purgatory, (vide s. 150 ;) and then followed 
masses for souls, as sacrifices for the departed. 
There are also some traces of prayers for the 
dead even among the Grecian Jews — e. g., 2 
Mace. xii. 43 — 46, vrtkp vexpiiv Ttpo6evz <cG $ ai " 

Note. — From what has now been said, it ap- 
pears that death, so far as it is the transition to 
a higher and more perfect life, and the means 
of bringing us to the enjoyment of it, ought not 
to be terrible to us, but should rather be regard- 
ed as a benefit. Those only, however, can re- 
gard it in this light who have lived here accord- 
ing to their destination, who have obtained the 
forgiveness of their sins (§t,xaLov/x,£ vol), and who 
go out of the world with pious and godly dis- 
positions. Vide 2 Cor. v. 6—10; Phil. i. 21, 
23; John, xiv. 1 — 4; 1 John, iii. 2, 3; 1 Peter, 
i. 4, 5, &c. 

SECTION CXLIX. - 

HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE VARIOUS OPI- 
NIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN ANCIENT 
AND MODERN TIMES RESPECTING THE CONTI- 
NUANCE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH; AND THE 
PROOFS DRAWN FROM REASON IN FAVOUR OF IT. 

I. Ideas of Rude Nations. 

The ideas of most rude heathen nations re- 
specting the state of man after death are indeed 
dark and obscure, as well as their ideas respect- 
ing the nature of the soul itself, which they re- 
gard as a kind of aerial substance, resembling 



the body, though of a finer material. Vide s. 
51, I. 3. Still it is found that the greater part 
of mankind, even of those who are entirely un- 
cultivated, though they may be incapable of the 
higher philosophical idea of the immortality of 
the soul, are yet inclined to believe that the soul 
survives the body, and continues either for ever, 
or at least for a Jong time. Their susceptibility 
for this faith, and their inclination to it, depend 
upon the following circumstances — viz., 

(1) Upon the love of life, which is deeply 
planted in the human breast, and operates pow- 
erfully, and leads to the wish and hope that life 
will be continued even beyond the grave. 

(2) Besides the traditions in behalf of this 
faith which uncultivated nations received trans- 
mitted from their fathers, they often had dreams, 
in which the dead appeared to them speaking 
and acting; and in this way they found their 
wishes, and the traditions they had received 
from their fathers, confirmed anew, so that the 
hope of immortality was always sustained in 
them, and never extinguished. Thus Homer 
represents (II. xxiii. 103, seq.,) that Achilles 
first became convinced that souls and shadowy 
forms have a real existence in the kingdom of 
shades, by the appearance to him of the depart- 
ed Patroclus in a dream. So too it is repre- 
sented in the parable of Christ, Luke, xvi. 27, 
where the rich man wished that Lazarus might 
be sent to appear before his living brethren, 
since if one of the dead should tioch them re- 
specting the state and destiny of the c.c\.d, they 
would believe. Moreover, these visions were 
often regarded as divine, — ovap ex Atoj hti, II. 
i. 63. 

But we find that many heathen nations, long 
before they had any philosophy, or enjoyed the 
light of revelation, or before they endeavoured 
to prove the immortality of the soul by argu- 
ments drawn from reason, still possessed a firm 
belief of the continuance of the soul. So it was 
with the Egyptians, the Indians, the Thracians, 
the Celtse, the ancient Germans, the ancient 
Greeks and Romans, and so it is with many of 
the rude heathen nations of our times. Vide 
Meiners, Geschichte aller Religionem, s. 174, f. 
Hence we find necromancy practised among the 
most barbarous people of all ages ; (vide s. 66 ;) 
and the prevalence of this presupposes, of 
course, a belief in the existence of the soul be- 
yond the grave. Vide Scripta Varii Argumenti, 
Number iii., " Origo opinionum de immortali- 
tate animorum apud nationes barbaras atque a 
cultu veri Dei alienas." 

II. Ideas of the Jewish Nation. 

(1) Many have maintained that the doctrine 
of the immortality of the soul is not taught in 
the Old Testament. This was especially main- 
tained by many Socinian writers of the sixteenth 



520 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



and seventeenth centuries. Others have gone 
so far as to construe the supposed silence of the 
Old-Testament writers on this subject into a 
formal denial of the doctrine, and have attempt- 
ed to justify their opinion by some texts in 
which it seems to be said that all is over with 
man at his death — e. g., Eccl. iii. 19. seq. ; Is. 
xxxviii. 18; Ps. vi. 6; xxx. 10; Ixxxviii. 11; 
cxv. 17; Job, vii. 7—10; x. 20—22; xiv. 
7—12; xv. 22. The Fragmentist of Wolfen- 
biittel attacked the divine authority of the Jew- 
ish religion in the most odious manner by these 
objections. Cf. the fourth Fragment from Les- 
sing's Beytragen zur Geschichte und Literatur 
aus der wolfentiittel'schen Bibliothek, th. iv. s. 
484, f. On the other hand, Warburton (Divine 
Legation of Moses) derived one of his main 
proofs of the divine mission of Moses from this 
his supposed silence on the subject of immorta- 
lity. Moses, he argues, being sustained in his 
legislation and government by immediate divine 
authority, had not the same necessity that other 
teachers have for making use of threatenings 
and punishments drawn from the future world, 
in order to furnish motives to obedience. 

(2) But even if it were true that there is no 
text, either in the books of Moses or the writ- 
ings of a subsequent period, in which the im- 
mortality of the soul is distinctly mentioned, it 
would by no means follow that this idea was at 
that time wholly unknown among the Israelites. 
Even from this supposition we must draw the 
contrary conclusion. For, not to mention that 
the Israelites and their ancestors were in Egypt, 
where this faith was very ancient, (according 
to Herodotus, ii. 123, the Egyptians were the 
first who entertained it,) it is proved that the 
Jews held this doctrine (a) From the laws of 
Moses against necromancy, or the invocation of 
the dead, which was very commonly practised 
by the Canaanites also, (Deut. xviii. 9 — 12,) 
and which, notwithstanding these laws, was 
for a long time afterwards retained among the 
Israelites, as appears from 1 Sam. xxviii., and 
the prophets, (b) From the appropriate ancient 
Hebrew name for the kingdom of the dead Si w 
(aSjyg), which so often occurs in Moses and the 
other books of the Old Testament. That Moses 
did not in his laws hold up the punishments 
of the future world to the terror of transgressors, 
is a circumstance which redounds to his praise, 
and cannot be alleged against him as a matter 
of reproach, since other legislators have been re- 
proached with being either deluded, or them- 
selves impostors for doing this very thing. And 
Moses did not design to give a system of theo- 
logy in his laws. 

(3) But from passages in his writings it may 
be seen that this doctrine was not unknown to 
him. These passages have been collected by 
different writers with different success. Vide 



Michaelis, Argumenta pro Immortalitate Animi 
e Mose Collecta, in Syntagm. Comment, t. i. ; 
Gottingen, 1759. Liiderwald, Untersuchung 
von der Kenntniss eines kiinftigen Lebens im 
Alten Testamente; Helmstadt, 1781. Semler, 
BeantwortungderFragendeswolfenbuttel'schen 
Ungenannten. Seiler, Obserr. ad psychologiam 
sacram ; Erlangen, 1779. 

The following texts from the writings of 
Moses may be regarded as indications of the 
doctrine of immortality — viz., Gen. v. 22, 24, 
where it is said respecting Enoch, that because 
he lived a pious life, God took hirn, so that he was 
no more among men. This was designed to be 
the reward and consequence of his pious life, 
and it points to an invisible life with God, to 
which he attained without previously suffering 
death. Vide s. 147, iii. 1. Gen. xxxvii. 35, 
Jacob says, "I will go down into ^w unto my 
son." We have here distinctly exhibited the 
idea of a place where the dead dwell connected 
together in a society ; vide s. 150. In conformity 
with this idea we must explain the phrase to go 
to his father?, Gen. xv. 15; or, to be gathered to 
his people, (more correctly, to enter into their 
habitation or abode,) Gen. xxv. 8, xxxv. 29; 
Num. xx. 24, &c. In the same way many of the 
tribes of North-American savages express their 
expectation of an immortality beyond the grave, 
by saying respecting one who is dead, that he 
will now see his father, grandfather, great- 
grandfather, &c. 

Paul argues from the text, Gen. xlvii. 9, and 
similar passages, where Jacob calls his life a 
journey, that the patriarchs expected a life after 
death, Heb. xi. 13 — 16. Only he says, very 
truly, 7t6pf)<jc&sv i86vtt$ raj fTtayys^t'aj. In 
Matt. xxii. 23, Christ refers, in arguing against 
the Sadducees, to Ex. iii. 6, where Jehovah calls 
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
(i. e., their protector and the object of their 
worship,) long after their death. It could not be 
that their ashes and their dust should worship 
God ; hence he concludes that they themselves 
could not have ceased to exist, but that, as to 
their souls, they still lived. Cf. Heb. xi. 13 — 17. 
And this passage was interpreted in the same 
way by the Jews after the time of Christ. Vide 
Wetstein, ad. h. 1. 

In the subsequent books of the Old Testa- 
ment the texts of this nature are far more nu- 
merous. Still more definite descriptions are 
given of Sixtr, and the condition of the departed 
there; e. g., Is. xiv. 9, seq., also in the Psalms 
and in Job. Vide s. 150. Even in these texts, 
however, the doctrine of the reward of the right- 
eous and the punishment of the wicked in the 
kingdom of the dead is not so clearly developed 
as it is in the New Testament; this is true even 
of the book of Job. Vide s. 151. - All that we 
find here with respect to this point is only 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 521 



obscure intimation, so that the Pauline Tto^w^ev 
tSwtfj is applicable, in relation to this doctrine, 
to the other books of the Old Testament as well 
as to those of Moses. In the Psalms there are 
some plain allusions to the expectation of reward 
and punishment after death, particularly Ps. xvii. 
15; xlix. 15, 16 ; lxxiii. 24. There are some pas- 
sages in the prophets where a revivication of the 
dead is spoken of, as Is. xxvi. 19 ; Dan. xii. 2 ; 
Ezek. xxvii. But although these do not teach 
a literal resurrection of the dead, but rather re- 
fer to the restoration of the nation and land, still 
these and all such figurative representations 
presuppose the proper idea that an invisible part 
of man survives the body, and will be hereafter 
united to it. Very clear is also the passage 
Eccl. xii. 7, "The body must return to the earth 
from whence it was taken, but the spirit to God 
who gave it," evidently alluding to Gen. iii. 19. 

From all this we draw the conclusion that the 
doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not 
unknown to the Jews before the Babylonian 
exile. This appears also from the fact that a ge- 
neral expectation existed of rewards and punish- 
ments in the future world ; although, in com- 
parison with what was afterwards taught on this 
point, there was at that time very little definitely 
known respecting it, and the doctrine, therefore, 
stood by no means in that near relation to reli- 
gion and morality into which it was afterwards 
brought, as we see to be the fact often in other 
wholly uncultivated nations. Hence this doc- 
trine is not so often used by the prophets as a 
motive to righteousness, or to deter men from 
evil, or to console them in the midst of suffering. 
But on this very account the piety of these an- 
cient saints deserves the more regard and admi- 
ration. It was in a high degree unpretending 
and disinterested. And although the prospect 
of what lies beyond the grave was very indis- 
tinct in their view, and although, as Paul said, 
they saw the promised blessings only from afar, 
they yet had pious dispositions, and trusted God. 
They held merely to the general promise, that 
God their Father would cause it to be well with 
them even after death. Psalm lxxiii. 26, 28, 
"When my strength and my heart faileth, God 
will be the strength of my heart, and my portion 
for ever." 

But it was not until after the Babylonian cap- 
tivity that the ideas of the Jews on this subject 
appear to have become enlarged, and that this 
doctrine was brought by the prophets, under the 
divine guidance, into a more immediate con- 
nexion with religion. This result becomes very 
apparent after the reign of the Grecian kings 
over Syria and Egypt, and their persecutions of 
the Jews. The prophets and teachers living at 
that time (of whose writings, however, nothing 
has come down to us) must therefore have given 
to their nation, time after time, more instruction 
66 



upon this subject, and must have explained and 
unfolded the allusions to it in the earlier pro- 
phets. And so we find that after this time, more 
frequently than before, the Jews sought and 
found in this doctrine of immortality and of fu- 
ture retribution, consolation and encouragement 
under their trials, and a motive to piety. Such 
discourses were therefore frequently put in the 
mouths of the martyrs in the second Book of 
Maccabees — e. g., vi. 26; vii. 9, seq., coll. xii. 
43 — 45. Cf. also the Book of Wisdom, ii. 1, 
seq. ; and especially iii. 1, seq., and the other 
apocryphal books of the Old Testament. 

At the time of Christ and afterwards this doc- 
trine was universally received and taught by the 
Pharisees, and was indeed the prevailing belief 
among the Jews ; as is well known from the 
testimony of the New Testament, of Josephus, 
and also of Philo. Tacitus also notices this 
firm belief of the Jews in the immortality of the 
soul. In his history (ver. 5) he says, anirnas 
prcelio aut suppliciis peremptorum set er nets put ant. 
Cf. an Essay comparing the ideas of the Apo- 
cryphal books of the Old Testament on the sub- 
jects of immortality, resurrection, judgment, 
and retribution, with those of the New Testa- 
ment, written by Frisch, in Eichhorn's Bi-blio- 
thek der Biblischen Literatur, b. iv. ; Ziegler's 
Theol. Abhand., th. ii. No. 4. Flugge, Ges- 
chichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, u. s. 
w., th. i. But the Sadducees, and they only, 
boasting a great attachment to the Old Testa- 
ment, and especially to the books of Moses, 
denied this doctrine, and, at the same time, the 
existence of the soul as distinct from the body. 

But Christ did more to illustrate and confirm 
this consoling doctrine than had been before done 
among the Jews or any other people; and he 
first gave to it that high practical interest which 
it now possesses. Vide s. 148, at the beginning. 

III. Philosophical Arguments. 

As soon as they began in heathen nations to 
philosophize, and to investigate more closely the 
doctrines relating to God and the nature and des- 
tination of man, they saw the importance and 
great practical interest of the doctrine of the 
immortality of the soul. It was found to exist 
already as a popular belief, but they now endea- 
voured to give it philosophical proof and de- 
monstration. Here, as in other things, the 
Greeks distinguished themselves above other 
nations. They laid the first ground of those phi- 
losophical proofs which were afterwards en- 
forced anew by Christian philosophers, and cor- 
rected and further developed. In the varied web 
of proof in our modern philosophical schools, 
the chief threads, and, as it were, the entire ma- 
terial, are of Grecian origin. According to the 
testimony of Cicero, the first Grecian philoso- 
pher who investigated this subject was Phere- 
2x2 



522 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



cydes; but according to Diogenes Laertius, it 
was Thales. The followers of Socrates, how- 
ever, did the most for this doctrine, and espe- 
cially Plato, in his Phacdon. The Platonic ar- 
guments are found' collected in the Tusculan 
Questions of Cicero (i. 23), and also briefly 
stated in his Treatise, De Senectute, c. 21, seq. 
With regard to these proofs, it is difficult for us, 
with our present ideas, to see how the soul, se- 
parated from the body, could maintain its own 
subsistence or personality, since, according to 
Plato, it is only a part of the soul of the world, 
to which, after death, it will return. 

There were, however, some among the Gre- 
cians who denied, or at least doubted, the im- 
mortality of the soul. Among these was Epi- 
curus. The stoics contended, indeed, for the 
continuance of the soul after death, but not for 
its absolute immortality, with regard to which 
they were accustomed to speak doubtfully ; as, 
for example, Seneca often does in his epistles. 
The opinions of Aristotle on this subject are 
doubtful ; many of his disciples have concluded 
from his principles that the soul is not immor- 
tal — e. g., among his old followers, Dicaearchus ; 
among the later Aristotelians, Averrhoes, in the 
twelfth century, and Peter Pomponatins, in the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in his book, 
" De Animi Immortalitate," edited anew by 
Prof. Christi. Gottfr. Bardili; Tubingen, 1791, 
8vo. He endeavours in this work to shew that, 
according to the principles of the Averrhoistic- 
Aristotelian philosophy, the immortality of the 
soul cannot be demonstrated on natural grounds. 

Even among Christians there have been some 
who have denied the immortality of the soul. 
There was, for example, an Arabian teacher, in 
the third century, against whom Origen wrote, 
who maintained that the soul dies with the 
body, but is again raised with it at the last day ; 
an opinion which was revived in the seventeenth 
century by William Coward, a London physi- 
cian. Still more strange is the opinion of H. 
Dodwell, who, in a work published in London, 
1706, contended that souls are naturally mortal, 
but become immortal only by means of Chris- 
tian baptism. 

The opinions of some of the grosser materi- 
alists of modern times are well known — e. g., 
of Toland, Helvetius, de la Mettrie, and the 
author of the Systeme de la Nature, who were 
followed in this by many of the so-called philo- 
sophers who wrote during the French Revolu- 
tion ; also many of the sceptics, who thought 
nothing could be determined on this subject — 
e. g., Hume. 

A few words respecting these philosophic ar- 
guments themselves. It has been justly re- 
marked by philosophers of modern times, espe- 
cially by Wolf, that three things are involved 
in the immortality of the soul : (a) the uninter- 



rupted continuance of the substance of the soul ; 
(6) the continuance of its consciousness ; and 
consequently (c) the lasting recollection of the 
soul, that its state after death is a consequence 
of that which preceded. This is very true ; but 
long before these philosophers wrote, all these 
points were taught in the Christian doctrine, as 
we have already seen in s. 148. Cf. the single 
passage, Luke, xvi. 

These philosophical proofs are either meta- 
physical — i. e., drawn from the idea which we 
have of the nature and attributes of the human 
soul ; or moral — i. e. deduced from the relation 
between God and the human soul, or, which is 
the same thing, from the attributes and designs 
of God, and the destination of man as a moral 
being, as learned from the attributes of God. 
The foundation for all these arguments was laid 
by the Greeks, and by those who drew imme- 
diately from them. In modern times, however, 
they have been revised and rendered more ac- 
curate, and better adapted to the prevailing sys- 
tems of philosophy. 

(1) The metaphysical proo >fs are derived from 
the simple nature of the soul, (its immateriali- 
ty,) from its inherent and essential activity, and 
from the maxim that simple things and elemen- 
tary powers do not perish. Vide Cic. de Se- 
nectute, 21, seq. None but God can destroy 
the essential being of the soul; but it cannot be 
shewn that he either will destroy it or wishes 
so to do. But from this argument nothing more 
than the bare possibility of the immortality of 
the soul could be shewn. But this possibility, 
if it depends merely upon the will of God, is 
quite as obvious, even if the soul has not that 
absolutely simple nature which is ascribed to 
it. In general, a complete metaphysical proof 
is impossible, because we know so little of the 
true nature of the soul. The doctrine of the 
simplicity of the human soul, in the strict philo- 
sophical sense of this term, is a mere philoso- 
phical hypothesis. Vide s. 51, I. 3, note. 

(2) The moral proofs are far more conclusive, 
though still not strong enough wholly to exclude 
all doubt and solicitude. Vide the introductory 
remarks to s. 148. Some of these moral proofs 
were urged by Plato and Cicero, in the passages 
above cited. The supposition of the mortality 
of the soul contradicts all our ideas of the attri- 
butes of God — his wisdom, goodness, and jus- 
tice. Is the duration of man limited to the pre- 
sent life, then the destination of man, and the 
designs of God with regard to him, are the most 
inexplicable riddle, and everything is full of 
contradictions. But if this life is not the last, 
decisive state of man, but is to be regarded only 
as a state of education, trial, purification, and 
preparation for a future life, then the plan and 
connexion of things becomes clear and obvious. 
We are moral beings, and find in our souls capa- 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 523 



cities for ever increasing- moral improvement, 
and we feel a longing after immortality, in order 
to make higher advances in that moral and spi- 
ritual perfection in which the attainments of the 
best during the present life are so imperfect. 
These capacities and this longing are to be re- 
garded as promises from the Creator. For 
were they never to be satisfied, he would not 
have placed them in the soul, as it could not 
have been his design to deceive us. If our 
souls are not immortal, then the beasts, which 
have merely an animal nature, and no rational 
and moral part, are far better in their condition 
than we, to whom a higher destination has 
plainly been given ; for they can develop their 
constitutional capacities, and can satisfy the 
innate propensities of their natures. And shall 
not we, the nobler creation of God, be able to 
develop the far more perfect spiritual and moral 
powers which he has given us, and to satisfy 
our spiritual wants ? 

The whole system of the rights and duties of 
moral beings would appear to be a web of incon- 
gruities if the present life were the only one. 
And, in fine, the disorder and injustice which 
are obvious in the destiny of men in their earthly 
life almost irresistibly compel us to admit this 
doctrine to be true, and to console ourselves in 
the midst of these disorders by the belief of it. 
The manifest disorders of the present state oc- 
casioned great difficulty to all thinking men of 
former times, who did not fully and distinctly 
admit the truth of a future life and future retri- 
bution. Vide Job, xxiv. 1, seq. ; Eccles. viii. 
10, 11, 14; ix. 1—3. Vide s. 71, especially 
No. VI. ad finem. Cf. L. H. Jacob, Beweis 
fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele aus dem Be- 
griffe der Pflicht; Zullichau, 1790, 8vo. This 
proof is drawn out on the principles of the Kant- 
ian philosophy, and was written in answer to 
the prize-question proposed by the Stolpic In- 
stitute at Leiden, "Whether there are any du- 
ties which, on grounds of reason, a man would 
feel himself bound to perform if he did not be- 
lieve the soul to be immortal ?" 

Note. — The following are some of the princi- 
pal modern writers on the immortality of the 
soul : — Clark, Sherlock, Addison, Reinbeck, 
Canz, Reimarus, Vornehmste Wahrheiten der 
natiirlichen Religion, 10 Abhand. Spalding, 
Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Jerusalem, 
Betrachtungen iiber die Wahrheiten der Reli- 
gion, th. 1, 6 Beytr. Noesselt, Vertheidigung 
der christlichen Religion. Mendelsohn, Phae- 
don. Villette, Unterredungen iiber die Gluck- 
seligkeit des kiinftingen Lebens. Kant, Kri- 
tik der praktischen Vernunft, and the work of 
Jacob above cited. The history of this doctrine 
has been given by Oporin, Franz, Cotta, Hen- 
nings, and Flugge, with which cf. Struvius, 
Historia Doctr. Graecor et Romanorum Philos. 



de Statu Animarum post Mortem ; Alten, 1803. 
8vo. Simon, Geschichte des Glaubens an die 
Fortdauer der Seele nach dem Tode, an Ges- 
penster, u. s. w; Heilbronu, 1804, 8vo. Nic. 
Aug. Herrich, Sylloge Scriptorum de Spiritibus 
Puris et Animabus Humanis Earumque Mate- 
rialitate, Immortalitate, et Statu post Mortem, 
deque AnimaBestiarum;Regensburg, 1790, 8vo. 
[Matth. Claudius. W 7 andsbecker, Bote, th. 
v. Hahn, Lehrbuch. s. 634, ff., and his history 
of this doctrine, s. 641, rT. — Tr.] 

SECTION CL. 

OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE VARI- 
OUS OPINIONS RESPECTING THE PLACE OF DE- 
PARTED SOULS, AND THEIR CONDITION THERE. 

I. The Place of their Abode. 

(1) Among many rude nations, and also 
among some which are cultivated, (e. g., in 
America, Thibet, and Hindostan,) the opinion 
is found to prevail that the soul passes from one 
body into another, sometimes another human 
body, sometimes that of beasts, or even into 
plants and trees. This was called /jtstsix-^vz^^^f 
by Pliny, iransfiguratio. Originally this trans- 
migration of souls was not regarded as a matter 
of retribution, or as a means of purification. 
This turn was not given to the doctrine until a 
period of higher cultivation. It came to be un- 
derstood in this light, for example, hy Pytha- 
goras and Plato among the Greeks. The belief 
in this doctrine seems rather to have rested, at 
first, upon a certain supposed analogy in nature, 
where one body is observed always to pass into 
another, and even when it seems to perish only 
alters its form and returns in a different shape. 
This belief may have also sprung in part from 
the almost universal idea that every thing in 
the whole creation is animated by a soul, espe- 
cially everything possessing an internal life and 
power of motion — e. g., plants. 

This doctrine of the transmigration of souls 
has also been held in modern times by many of 
the Jews. Vide Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Ju- 
denthum, th. ii. c. 61. It cannot, however, be 
shewn that this opinion prevailed among the 
Jews at the time of Christ, particularly among 
the Pharisees, either by the passages of the 
New Testament cited in favour of it, or by those 
from Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 

Among Christians, this notion has met with 
but little favour ; and it has without reason been 
ascribed to the Gnostics, Manicheans, and even 
to Origen. The reason of its being ascribed to 
the latter was his belief in the pre-existence of 
the soul (vide s. 57, II. 1) — a belief which in 
some philosophical systems is intimately con- 
nected with the doctrine of the transmigration 
of the soul. Since the seventeenth centurv this 



524 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



has been again regarded as a probable doctrine, 
on account of some analogy in the material 
world, and has been again advocated by Hel- 
mont, Edelmann, Lessing, (Erziehungdes Men- 
schengeschlechts.) 

[Note. — The doctrine of the transmigration 
of souls has received new light from the inves- 
tigations which have been made of late in East- 
ern literature. A deeply interesting exhibition 
of this subject is given by Fred. Schlegel in his 
" Philosophic der Geschichte," b. i. s. 147. He 
there shews that this is one of the most funda- 
mental doctrines of faith in the Eastern world — 
that it rests upon a religious basis, and even in 
the earliest periods was connected with the idea 
of retribution and sanctification. The soul, it 
is supposed, after having been soiled and cor- 
rupted by its contact with the body and the 
world, must expiate its sins by wandering, for 
an appointed cycle, through various forms of 
uncongenial matter. By enduring these penal 
sufferings for a long time it becomes purified, 
and prepared to mingle again in the original, 
pure fountain from which it proceeded. At the 
bottom of this whole belief lies the deep and 
just feeling, that after man has wandered so far 
from God, in order to approach him again he 
must travel with great labour through a long 
and dreary way ; and also the conviction, that 
nothing which is imperfect or stained with sin 
can enter into the pure world of blessed spirits, 
or be for ever united with God. — Tr.] 

(2) Far more general was the opinion among 
the ancient nations that the abode of departed 
spirits is under the earth ; because the dead are 
laid beneath the ground, and their body returns 
to the dust. The souls there separated from 
their bodies were regarded as a sort of aerial 
beings, or shades, (slSoM.a, umbrse.) Vide s. 66, 
II. coll. s. 59, 1. Taken as a whole, the ancient 
Eastern nations and the Greeks agreed in this 
point; while still it is not necessary to suppose 
that the latter borrowed their ideas from the 
former. 

This place was denominated by the Hebrews 
Sist?, by the Greeks, abtjs — the word by which 
the LXX. always translate h-wy. The term 
a$Y]s is explained by Plutarch (De Is. et Osir.) 
by cUtSc'j, dopa-r'ov, dark, where one sees nothing. 
It is allegorically explained by Plato, in his 
Cratylus, as the invisible world, because the 
place is unseen. Neither of these terms is used 
in the scriptures to signify exactly the grave, 
still less the place of the damned; nor are they 
used in this sense by any of the fathers in the 
first three centuries. Vide s. 96, I. The same 
place is called among the Hebrews yytn nffinn, 
as in Homer, vrto yaiav, vrib xsv&sat yaia$, and 
the entrance to it is placed by the Greeks in the 
extreme west. Where the sun goes down, and 
his light and fire are extinguished, there, it was 



naturally supposed, is the place where all things 
perish, and where darkness reigns. 

Both the Hebrews and Greeks describe this 
under-world as a great kingdom, and both use 
the phrase, gates of death, or Hades. Cf. Homer. 
Here, according to the ideas of men in the ear- 
liest ages, the shades of the good and the bad 
dw r ell together, without any distinction or any 
marked separation. Thus it is where "raw? is 
introduced in the Old Testament — e. g., Is. xiv., 
where there is a kind of distinction of rank, and 
kings sit upon thrones ; but where nothing de- 
finite and clear is said respecting a distinction 
in the places of the pious and the wicked. Thus 
in Homer, too, even those who are punished are 
in the same place with the other shades, Odys. 
xi. 575, seq. 

But after a time these places in the lowei 
world were divided, and the residences of the 
righteous and the wicked were conceived of as 
separate. Thus Tartarus among the Greeks, 
which, during the time of Homer and Hesiod, 
was regarded merely as the prison of the Titans, 
became gradually the universal abode of the 
damned. So it is with Plato and others, who 
are followed by Virgil, Mn. vi. In the same 
way did the conceptions of the Jews on this 
subject become more developed in later periods. 
According to Luke, xvi. 23 — 26, both the rich 
man and Lazarus are in Hades, but a wide gulf, 
(zdaua usya,) as it is figuratively represented 
in the parable, separates the fields of the blessed 
from the place of the damned ; no one may or 
can pass from the one to the other. The Jews 
too, in imitation of the Greeks, called the place 
of punishment, where wicked men and angels 
are reserved unto the day of judgment, Ta'pr'apoj. 
Vide Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 7 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; where 
Taprapoco appears. Cf. s. 63, II. 

From this it appears that the sacred writers 
retained the phraseology common among theii 
contemporaries, in order to be more easily un- 
derstood by them, and to make a stronger im- 
pression upon their minds. They, however, 
used all this only in the way of figure and figu- 
rative representation, by which they designed 
to set forth the most important truths with re- 
gard to the state of departed spirits ; as any one 
may see from Luke, xvi., 2 Pet. ii., &c. 

The whole kingdom of the dead is described 
by the ancients in a threefold method — viz., (a) 
as a dark, desolate, silent region, the land of 
forgetful ness, rest, and inactivity; since the 
dead rest silently in the grave under the earth, 
and are cut off from all connexion with the liv- 
ing world. Cf. the texts cited from the Old 
Testament, s. 149, II. (in init.) This gave 
rise to the idea respecting the sleep of the soul 
in after times, (b) Again it was described as 
a kingdom full of motion and activity, and as 
resembling as nearly as possible the present 



STATE INTO AVHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 525 



world. Cf. Isaiah, xiv. (c) But in process of 
time these two representations were connected 
together in a great variety of ways. 

Now the sacred writers, and Christ himself, 
often make use of figurative expressions, bor- 
rowed from these ideas, though they also fre- 
quently exchange them for others which are 
more literal. Thus what Christ represents in 
Luke, xxi., under the image of a steep walled 
grave, he describes elsewhere without a figure — 
viz., that the states of men in the future world 
will be very diverse, but exactly apportioned, 
both as to happiness and misery, according to 
their conduct in this life; and that it will not 
depend upon the choice of men to pass from 
one state to the other. Cf. Matt. xxv. The 
hindrances here are as great and insurmountable 
as a deep chasm is to one who would pass from 
one place to another. Cf. s. 148, I. 

The ancient languages were still more defi- 
cient than those of the present day in philoso- 
phically definite expressions for objects beyond 
the cognizance of the senses. Indeed, many 
things could not be so much as conceived of 
without a symbolical representation; hence 
such are often found even in the writings of 
Plato, and other Grecian philosophers. Ac- 
cording to this method, one could not indeed 
teach in so exact and definite a manner; but he 
would make a stronger impression upon the 
feelings and desires, and succeed better in 
awakening religious dispositions among those 
who were unacquainted with philosophical lan- 
guage. This hint is very important for the re- 
ligious teacher. If he follows the method of 
instruction pursued in schools of philosophy, 
and adopts their phraseology, he will accom- 
plish but little, and often be entirely unintelli- 
gible to his hearers. He must follow the ex- 
ample of the Bible, and make use alternately 
of figurative and literal representations. In fact, 
the whole representation of the invisible world 
must be figurative and symbolical, even when 
we make use of the most literal expressions in 
our power. It is all a mere comparison of the 
invisible world with something like it in the 
world of sense. For what the apostle said, 
"eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard," &c, 
is literally true in application to this subject. 

With regard to Orcus, and the different views 
entertained on this subject among Christians, 
cf. Cotta, De Inferno ejusque Sede; Tubingen, 
1775. As to the ideas of the Hebrews, cf. the 
works of Ziegler and Arnmon, Ueber das Tod- 
tenreich der Hebraeer; Erlangen, 1792. Cf. 
also, an Excursus of Heyne on the fourth 
^Eneid, and other works cited below. 

Note. — To any unprejudiced observer it can- 
not but appear a great excellence in the Bible, 
and especially in the New Testament, that it 
takes ho part in the absurd conceptions which 



have often prevailed on this subject, and from 
which the greatest philosophers are not alto- 
gether free — e. g., Plato. And, on the other 
hand, the Bible is equally deserving of praise 
for not exhibiting pure truths in metaphysical 
language, and making them the object of dry 
and curious speculation, but, on the contrary, 
in the highest degree intelligible, so that their 
practical application is obvious to every one. 

(3) But many believed that departed souls 
remain in or about the graves or dwellings of 
the dead, either for ever, or for a long time. So 
many nations of different degrees of cultivation. 
The opinion was formerly very widely diffused, 
that departed spirits linger for a long time 
around the dead body, or at least sometimes 
return to it from the kingdom of the dead ; and 
hence, in part, the belief in spectres, s. 66, II. 
These ideas prevailed to some extent among 
the Jews and many Christians; and even at the 
Concil. Iliberit. in the year 313, it is forbidden 
to kindle a light in burying-grounds, lest the 
spirits of the saints should be disturbed. 

II. Opinions respecting the state of Departed Souls, 

(1) It is apparent from what has been said, 
that, according to the ideas of the ancients, the 
employments, the state and life of departed 
souls, resemble the life of men in this upper 
world — an idea in which many germs of truth 
are involved. We find nothing said respecting 
the sleep of the soul either in the Old or New 
Testaments, nor in the earliest monuments of 
other nations. Vide s. 148. Quite as foreign 
from the conceptions of the earliest periods is 
the idea that the dead have no recollection of 
their earthly life, and take no interest in human 
affairs. The opposite of this is clear from the 
earliest records — e. g., from Homer (Odys. xi. 
coll. II. xxii. 389, 390), and from the holy 
scriptures, (Is. xiv., Luke, xvi.) It was for 
this reason that so many nations believed that 
the dead sometimes return, appear to men, and 
have personal intercourse with the living. And 
hence too the error of invoking the saints. These 
superstitious conclusions, however, are not fa- 
voured by the doctrine of Christ. Vide Luke, 
X vi. 27—31. 

It was very natural, even for nations having 
no direct revelation, to come to the thought that 
the shades in Hades recognise each other, have 
mutual intercourse, and perpetuate the friend- 
ship begun in the present life. This idea 
might, indeed, like many others, have been 
abstracted from the mere phantoms of a dream. 
For in dreams our departed friends appear to 
be cognizable, as Patroclus did to Achilles, 
even as to his eyes, voice, and stature, II. xxiii. 
60, seq. 107. This may be justified also by an 
appeal to scripture, Luke, xvi. ; Heb. xii. 23, 
and Revelation. The soul, indeed, is no longer 



526 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



regarded as a fine material substance, as it often 
was in ancient times ; but these delightful views 
lose nothing on this account, as some have most 
unphilosophically supposed. For one may be 
recognised otherwise than by his body, and 
may be loved, too, otherwise than corporeally. 
Why then should not departed souls recognise 
each other, even when they no longer possess 
bodies'? 

(2) In the childhood of nations, the ideas of 
men have been commonly very vague and inde- 
finite with regard to the happy or miserable state 
of departed souls. Cf. Meiners, Geschichte der 
Religionen, s. 174 — 178. With regard to what 
the Israelites in the earliest times knew on this 
subject, while they yet saw the promises in an 
obscure distance, cf. s. 149, II. Many of the 
heathen nations represented the state of the 
dead, not indeed as wholly miserable ; still they 
regarded it as not altogether desirable, and often 
as rather worse than better, in comparison with 
their state in this world. Achilles in Hades 
does not speak of death very favourably, but 
would rather till the field on earth, as a day 
labourer, than rule all the hosts of the shades ; 
Odys. xi. 487. For the Elysium in Homer is 
not as yet the residence of the departed souls of 
men, but only the abode of heroes or demigods. 

But by degrees they advanced to more en- 
larged and correct conceptions. The Greeks 
then supposed that good men participate here- 
after in the joys of Elysium, and that crimes 
are punished in Hades. At first, however, only 
the grosser offences were supposed liable to 
punishment there, and in Homer, one offence 
only— perjury ; II. iii. 278 ; xix. 259, 260. This 
indicates the great simplicity and the very de- 
fective ideas on moral subjects which still pre- 
vailed, since only the very grossest crimes were 
regarded as worthy of punishment. After- 
wards, in the greater advance of cultivation, and 
the higher perfection of moral ideas, the number 
of crimes punished in Hades was very much 
increased ; and at length it was believed that 
every virtue is there rewarded and every vice 
punished. So it is represented by Plato, and 
other Grecian philosophers; so also, in imita- 
tion of them, by Virgil, Mneid, vi. Vide Heyne, 
Excurs. 1 and 8. 

A gradual development of ideas is also no- 
ticed among the Israelites. In general, the 
great multitude among them, as among other 
people, formed very gross conceptions respect- 
ing the joys and pains following death, and re- 
garded them as merely corporeal, since they 
were unable to conceive of any other. Many 
understood literally the expressions, to be in 
Abraham'' s bosom, to sit down at table with Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob; the more enlightened, 
however, used them only as figurative expres- 
sions, as Christ himself always understood and 



explained them in his instructions — e. g., Luke, 
xvi. 

(3) The doctrine respecting an intermediate 
state of departed souls, and respecting purga- 
tory. Cf. s. 148, III., and Morus, p. 290. 
Such a state, in which the fate of men is unde- 
cided until the day of judgment — a state which 
is neither heaven nor hell, neither being blessed 
nor damned, was supposed by many of the 
church fathers — e. g., Justin the Martyr, Ire- 
naeus, and Tertullian. Only some eminent 
saints and martyrs, it w r as supposed, come at 
once into heaven ; and only the grossest sinners 
go at once into hell. This intermediate state 
they call, taking the appellation from Luke, 
xvi., Sinum Abrahami. To this they referred 
the text, 1 Pet. iii. 19, to. h yv?.axy rtvev/xorfa. 
Vide s. 96. Thither Christ went, and rescued 
from thence the patriarchs and other pious men 
who had died before his atonement was made. 
This place was afterwards called limbus {supe- 
rior or exterior pars inferni) patrum ; and a lim- 
bus infantium was also supposed (and is still 
believed by the Romish church) into which 
children go, because they are not actually con- 
demned, having committed no peccata actualia, 
while still, in consequence of original sin, they 
are unable to attain to the blessed vision of 
God. 

The foundation for the doctrine of purgatory 
is found even in the second and third centuries. 
Its origin may be traced back to the Pythago- 
rean or Platonic philosophy. Souls, according 
to Plato, are a part of the divine nature, which, 
however, are confined in the body, as in a pri- 
son. Vide s. 74, 1, ad finem. Now, even after 
the soul of man is disembodied, there still 
cleaves to it much sin and impurity, acquired 
from its contact with the body, and this im- 
purity is regarded by Plato as a natural sick- 
ness. It cannot therefore, immediately on leav- 
ing the body, return again to its original source. 
With some, the disorder is incurable, and these 
are the lost, who go at once to Tartarus ,- with 
others, it is curable, and these are purged and 
purified in Hades. This process Plato com- 
pared with purification (xc&apsij) by water, ajr, 
and fire; and represented this state as an inter- 
mediate one. Vide Plato, Phaedon, c. 62; and 
Virgil, iEneid, vi. 735 — 751, and Heyne, Ex- 
cur, xiii. 

This, with many other Platonic doctrines and 
fables, was early transferred to Christianity. 
We find traces of it among the Gnostics, (ac- 
cording to the testimony of Irenaeus, ii. 51, seq.,) 
in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, in the 
second century, and of Origen, in the third. But 
after the fourth century it was more widely dif- 
fused through the Latin church. It is found 
in Hieronymus, Lactantius, Ambrosius, and 
even Augustine ; the latter of whom, however, 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 527 



though he speaks of ignis purgatorius, regards 
the subject as doubtful. In the sixth century 
this doctrine was taught by Gregory the Great, 
in the eighth by Beda, Boniface, and others. It 
was supposed that those Christians only who 
commit no deliberate sin after baptism are ex- 
empt from this punishment, or such as become 
martyrs, or who, by assuming the monastic life, 
have made atonement for their sins. Gross of- 
fenders — those who, according to Plato, are 
irrecoverably disordered, pass immediately after 
death into hell. Those who have not sinned so 
grossly, (who are recoverable,) or whose repent- 
ance commences in the present life, but remains 
imperfect, although they are not eternally con- 
demned, yet do not attain at once to the enjoy- 
ment of God, Such persons, it was supposed, 
need to be purified and to make expiation for 
their sins by the endurance of certain penalties 
appointed by God, conceived of under the image 
of purifying by fire. The advocates of this view 
endeavoured to support it by such texts of scrip- 
ture as the following — viz., 1 Cor. iii. 13, (as 
by fire ;) Jude, ver. 23 ; Malachi, iii. 2 ; 2 Mace. 
xii. 39. 

This doctrine became connected with many 
opinions and practices equally unscriptural, es- 
pecially with offering prayer for the dead, and 
making satisfaction to relieve them from punish- 
ment; and also with the doctrine of the Lord's 
Supper as a sacrifice for the dead — a doctrine 
which prevailed during the eleventh and twelfth 
centuries ; at which time, also, masses offered 
in order to free souls from purgatory became 
common. As early as the eleventh century, the 
feast of all souls was appointed by Pope John 
XVIII. This doctrine was now adopted by the 
schoolmen into their systems — e. g., by Peter 
of Lombardy, Thomas Aquinas, and others. 
The most frightful representations were given 
of purgatory, founded upon stories of the appa- 
rition of souls from thence, &c. The theolo- 
gians, too, contended respecting the place, man- 
ner, and duration of this punishment. And the 
council at Florence, in 1439, gave this doctrine 
the authority of a formal article of faith. As 
such, it still continues in the Romish church, 
and was re-established by the council at Trent. 

This doctrine, however, of the Romish church 
respecting purgatory, as it has been gradually 
developed by the schoolmen, and as it was es- 
tablished by the council at Florence, differs in 
two essential points from the 'old Platonic no- 
tion which was adopted by Origen and other 
church fathers — viz., (a) According to Origen 
and the Platonists, all without exception are 
subjected to this purification, although some 
need it more, and others less. But according 
to the opinion of the Romish church, those only 
go into purgatory who, though they have been 
baptized and believe, are not of perfect virtue. 



(5) According to Origen and the Platonic idea, 
the whole design of this suffering is to promote 
the moral improvement and perfection of men; 
but according to the conception of the Romish 
church, it is designed to make atonement and 
expiation for sin. 

Note. — Works on this subject, (a) Histori- 
cal: Jac. Windet, Sr'pco^aT'e'i)? irii otohixos de 
Vita Functorum Statu ex Hebrseorurn et Grae- 
corum comparatis Sententiis concinnatus; Lon- 
dini, 1663 — 64. Systeme des Anciens et des 
Modernes sur l'Etat des Ames separees de 
Corps ; h Londres, 1757, 2 torn. 8vo. Thom. 
Burnet, De Statu Mortuornm et Resurgentium ; 
London, 1757; against which, and in behalf of 
the Romish doctrine, there were treatises writ- 
ten by Muratori, Columna, and others. Baum- 
garten, Hist. Doctrinss de Statu Animarum se- 
paratarum; Halae, 1754. Cotta, Recentiores 
qusedam Controversial de Statu Animi post 
Mortem; Tubingen, 1758. (6) Philosophical 
and doctrinal works : Wernsdorf, De Animarum 
separatarum Statu, earumdemque cum Vivis 
commercio, in his "Collec. Disputt." torn. i. 
No. 15. The best and latest works on the state 
of the soul after death are collected by Loscher, 
Dresden, 1735. Meier, Philosophische Be- 
trachtung vom Zustande der Seele nach dem 
Tode; Halle, 1769. J. E. Schubert, Gedanken 
vom ewigen Leben, und Zustand der Seele nach 
dem Tode; Jena, 1747. J. C. Lavater, Aus- 
sichten in die Ewigkeit; Zurich, 1773, 3 th. 
8vo. Other works are cited s. 160. 

SECTION CLI. 

WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE " RESURRECTION 
OF THE DEAD j" THE MEANING OF THE WORD 

"resurrection;" AND what IS taught re- 
specting IT BY THE JEWS. 



I. What is understood by the Resurrection of the 
Dead. 
By this is meant, the revivification of the hu- 
man body after it has been forsaken by the 
soul, or, the reunion of the soul hereafter with 
the body which it had occupied in the present 
world. Death was compared with sleep, and 
the dead body with a sleeping person, cimr, 
xotixr^iv-tts, s. 147, I. Hence the terms which 
literally signify to awake, to rise up, to rise out 
of sleep, are also used to denote the resurrection 
of the lifeless body — e. g., in Hebrew, the 
terms op, a"pn, and in Hellenistic Greek, avi 
6tr t ixL, avdvtaus, (with the Rabbins, npipn), 
i'yftpw, and tyfp'jtj ix vsxpwv. Of the literal 
sense of these terms, examples may he found 
everywhere ; cases of the derived signification 
occur where these terms are used with the qua- 
lification tx vtxpuv — e. g., where the resurrec 
tion of Christ is spoken of, and that of others 



528 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



whose body is to be restored like his. Vide 
John, v. 21, 28; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 20, 53. 

The Jews were also accustomed to speak of 
the resurrection of the dead under the image of 
a new or second birth, to which they were led 
by the passage Is. xxvi. 19, "The earth will 
again bring forth her dead." Vide Michaelis's 
Commentary on Heb. i. 5. Again, dvcat^/xv 
was used even by the ancient classical Greeks 
to denote the returning of the dead to life. So 
it was in Homer, II. xxi. 54, seq., where 
Achilles says, " What a wonder ! all the Tro- 
jans slain by me shall again arise from the 
kingdom of the dead, {avarstYiSovtai.y Cf. II. 
xxiv. 756. Cicero and Livy designate this idea 
by the phrase ah inferis exsistere. In iEschy- 
lus, the term avdotaats is used for the same 
thing. 

But the same terms which signify arising, 
and the being awakened from sleep, also denote 
figuratively, (1) a restoration to a more happy 
condition, in opposition to a state of fall and 
prostration. In this general sense they are used 
in two ways — viz., physically — e. g., a sick 
man rising from his bed and recovering his 
health is said avdotrjvai, Is. xxxviii. 9; and 
again in a moral sense, used with reference to 
the reformation of a man who rises from his fall. 
And so (2) the terms resurrection from the dead, 
and being raised from the dead, denote, figura- 
tively, (a) external and physical restoration to 
a happy condition, death being the representa- 
tive of misery, and life of happiness — e. g., Is. 
xxvi. 19, 20; Ezek. xxxvii. ; where the subject 
is the restoration of the Jews after a long and 
terrible persecution, and the reward of the vir- 
tuous. Cf. Dathe, a. 1. (6) A moral restora- 
tion or renovation of men — e. g., Eph. v. 14, 
Hyetps .... avowr'a ix vcxpwv, coll. i. 19, 20, and 
Rom. viii. 10, &c. 

II. Doctrine of the Jews respecting the Resurrec~ 
Hon of the Dead. 
(1) There are obvious traces of the doctrine 
that the soul will survive the body, even in the 
oldest Jewish writings, (vide s. 149, II.;) but 
of the doctrine, that the body will hereafter be 
raised to life and the whole man be restored, 
there are no very clear intimations in the ear- 
liest writings. There is nothing in these writ- 
ings which is inconsistent with such a doctrine, 
or opposed to it; but neither, on the other hand, 
was there, in those early ages, any distinct in- 
formation or revelation communicated on this 
subject. The passage, Job, xix. 25, seq., is in- 
deed cited in behalf of this opinion, and such a 
construction of this passage is strenuously vin- 
dicated by Michaelis and Schultens. Accord- 
ing to the Vulgate, which Luther for the most 
part follows, this passage very clearly teaches 
this doctrine; and many persons, having been 



accustomed to this rendering from their youth, 
are startled by any doubts with respect to it. 
But, 

(a) It is remarkable, that neither the ancient 
Jewish teachers, nor Christ or his apostles, ever 
appealed to this passage which appears so plain 
to us. This explanation, therefore, appears to 
have been unknown to them, nor can there be 
found any trace of it in the Septuagint. 

(b) It is not in itself probable that this doc- 
trine should have been at once so clearly re- 
vealed in so ancient a writing. This would be 
contrary to all analogy. For knowledge of this 
kind has always been gradually developed, and 
the revelations made to man follow in regular 
gradation one after another. 

(c) If Job had such distinct expectations and 
hopes, it is hard to account for it that he did not 
earlier express them, that he did not oftener 
console himself with them, and that he con- 
stantly recurs to his old complaints and doubts, 
which would have been entirely set aside and an- 
swered by the knowledge of any such doctrine. 

(c?) Nor can it be accounted for that his 
friends should have replied nothing to the state- 
ment of such a doctrine as this, since they take 
up, one by one, all his remarks, his complaints, 
and his consolations, and refute them. Would 
they, now, have passed by unnoticed this most 
important of all his arguments? 

(e) From many passages in the book of Job 
it is clear that he was indeed acquainted with a 
life after death (he speaks of b^sf) ; but there 
is no satisfactory evidence that he believed in a 
state of retribution beyond the grave. Vide 
ch. xiv. 7 — 12; vii. 6; ix. 25; xvii. 11 — 16; 
xvi. 22, seq. 

(/) The common translation of this passage, 
according to which it is made to teach so plainly 
the doctrine of the resurrection, does violence to 
the words of the original, and is contrary to the 
whole usus loquendi of the Bible. This Mi- 
chaelis perceived. He therefore alters the text, 
and, by a comparison with the ancient dialects, 
makes out an artificial rendering, according to 
which the passage treats of the resurrection. 

The most natural construction of this passage 
is, to understand it as relating to Job's restora- 
tion to health and recovery from sickness, which 
he so ardently wished and hoped for. Vide 
Morns, p. 293. This text would then be illus- 
trated by one still more plain in the same book, 
viz., ch. xlii. 25.. He refutes the national preju- 
dice which his friends were continually object- 
ing against him, that sickness and other exterjial 
calamities are always to be regarded as the con- 
sequence of sins committed by the sufferer. He 
pleads that even piety and rectitude are not al- 
ways exempt from these calamities. It is on 
this account that he cherishes the hope, which 
he elsewhere expresses, that God will justify 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 529 



him in the view of his enemies and accusers, by 
an entire restoration ; and this hope becomes 
here so strong that it leads him to look upon his 
recovery as certain. Cf. Eichhorn's Essay, 
Hiob's Hoffnungen, in his " Allgemeinen Bibli- 
othek. der biblischen Literatur," b. i. s. 367 : also 
Henke, Narratio Critica de Interpretatione loci, 
Job, xix. 25, 27, in Antiqua Ecclesia, Helmst. 
1783, 4to., (in his "Opusc") 

According to this view, the text may be trans- 
lated as follows: — "I know that my Redeemer 
lives. And ere long, he, who now lies in the 
dust, will arise, (he who is deeply bowed down 
by sickness and pain will recover;) although 
my skin is consumed, I shall yet in this body see 
God, (i. e., have in him a gracious God, be 
blessed and restored by him;) as a friend shall 
I see him, and no more as an adversary. I wait, 
full of longing desire, for his help. Then shall 
ye say, when my innocence is clear, why did 
we persecute this man?" Ilgen, in his work, 
"Jobi antiquissimi carminis Hebraici natura 
atque virtutes," p. 161, seq., thus translates: 
" Vivit, scio enim, causae mese patronus. Qui 
contemtus in pulvere jacet, victor caput attolet. 
Haerebo adhuc in cute, dira hac vi contusa : ex 
hac cuticula videbo Deum. Quern ego mihi 
videbo propitium, quern hisce oculis cernam 
animo non alienatum. quam enecat renes 
desiderii ardor !" 

There are no distinct intimations of the doc- 
trine of the resurrection of the body in the writ- 
ings of Moses, or in the Psalms ; for Ps. xlix. 
15, does not relate to this subject, still less does 
Ps. civ. 29, 30, though cited by Theodoret as 
one of the proof-texts of this doctrine. Isaiah 
is the first writer who compares the restoration 
of the Jewish people and state with a resurrec- 
tion from the dead; ch. xxvi. 19, 20. In this 
he was followed by Ezekiel at the time of the 
exile, ch. xxxvii. From these passages, we must 
conclude that something respecting this doctrine 
was known at that time among the Israelites ; 
still they do not seem to have seen it in that 
clear light in which it was afterwards revealed ; 
since in that case the prophets would probably 
have mentioned it oftener and more distinctly in 
their writings. But the text, Dan. xii. 2, leads 
very plainly to this doctrine, for here is some- 
thing more than a mere civil restoration. « Those 
who lie asleep under the earth will awake ; some 
to eternal life, others to everlasting shame and 
contempt." 

Judging then from the writings of the Jews, 
they appear to have been destitute of any com- 
plete knowledge of this doctrine until the exile, 
and indeed for a considerable period after. Still, 
there is nothing in the Old Testament which 
contradicts this doctrine, it is only not plainly 
revealed. For where it is said, (e. g., Psalm 
Ixxxviii. 10,) "that the dead shall not rise again 
67 



and praise God," it is plainly meant that they 
will never return to this upper world, and into 
the society of men living upon the earth ; they 
can never again, in company with us, and in the 
circle of the living, praise God. Cf. Ps. vi. 6, 
xxx. 10; Is. xxxviii. 18, coll. ver. 20. 

(2) It was not, then, until the Babylonian 
exile, and more especially after this period, that 
this doctrine was developed and diffused among 
the Jews. We are not acquainted with the more 
particular occasion which led to this develop- 
ment, or what prophets or teachers after Daniel 
were employed in giving this doctrine a wider 
circulation. For just in this place there is a 
great gap in the doctrinal history of the Jews, 
since no writings of the prophets or teachers of 
this period have come down to us. So much 
only is known on this subject, from the informa- 
tion which has come down to us — viz., 

(a) About the time when the Jews came under 
the Grecian dominion, the doctrine of a future 
retribution was more developed among them 
than it had before been, and was employed by 
them in a practical way, as a means of consola- 
tion under suffering and persecution. Vide s. 
149, II. 

(6) It is known also, that even at that time 
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was 
most intimately connected with the doctrine of 
retribution. It was then taught that the perfect 
and happy condition of man w 7 ould first com- 
mence, when his soul should be hereafter united 
again to his body. They did not therefore com- 
monly separate these two things in their concep- 
tions, but always connected the thought of the 
continuance of the soul after death with the idea 
of its future union with the body; indeed, they 
supposed that the blessedness of man could not 
be complete until his soul should be reunited to 
his body. Hence they comprehend under the 
term dvdcrtaacs, the entire future condition of 
man. For according to the doctrine of the Jews, 
with which the holy scriptures accord, man is 
not merely in this life a being compounded of 
sense and reason, but he will continue the same 
in the life to come, except only that, in the case 
of the good, there will be none of that prepon- 
derance of sense over reason which has its foun- 
dation in our earthly bodies. Cf. the Essay, 
" De nexu resurrectionis J. C. e mortuis et mor- 
tuorum," in Scripta Varii Argumenti, Num. ix. 

Thus we find it, for the first time, in the se- 
cond book of Maccabees, where the martyrs are 
made to expresss the hope, by which they were 
consoled, of a coming resurrection — e. g., vii. 9, 
ftj aiu>viov oi/aj3tw«ytv £"»7S qp&t dvaatrjasi, 
and ver. 14, rtcoxv avaatrjGs&cu into ©fov, and 
avais-tadis ftj ^w^v, also verses 23, 29, 36, but 
especially chap. xii. 43 — 45, where it is said it 
would be foolish to pray for the dead if they did 
no*; rise again. And so we find, both among the 
2 Y 



.30 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



later Jewish and earlier Christian writers, that 
there is no distinction made between immortality 
and the resurrection, but that both are considered 
as the same thing. Vide the passages from the 
Rabbins cited in Schottgen's Hor. Heb. ad Joh. 
v. It is the same frequently in the New Testa- 
ment — e. g., Matt. xxii. 31, where the avdata<ji,s 
vexpu>v is argued from the fact, that God calls 
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
even after their death ; although, according to 
our present usage, in which resurrection and 
immortality are distinguished, this fact would 
only prove the continuance of the soul after 
death. Again, 1 Cor. xv. 32, el vtxpoi ovx 
iyeCpovtav, tyuycd/Asv xai riiiofisv, x. t. %. But 
wherever dvaataai^ d oj fiat oj, or sapxoj is 
spoken of, the resurrection of the body and its 
connexion with the soul are alone intended. 

The Jews, therefore, would regard the resto- 
ration of man as incomplete unless his body 
were restored. They believed the latter essential 
to the entire restitution of man, because in the 
present life he consists of both soul and body. 
And as the body here participates in our virtues 
and vices, and their consequences, so they sup- 
posed it would hereafter participate in our re- 
ward or punishment. Hence they represent the 
intermediate state in which the soul exists with- 
out the body, as an imperfect state. It is com- 
pared by them to nakedness, (and the same is 
done by Plato,) e. g., in the Chaldaic para- 
phrases, Job, xxxviii. 14, &c. So Paul, ov 
yvjxvoi svprj^oofis^ta, 2 Cor. V. 2 — 4. 

The greater part of the Jews formed very 
gross conceptions respecting the rewards and 
enjoyments of the blessed in the future state, and 
many of them perverted the doctrine of the re- 
surrection of the body to suit these conceptions. 
For they were for the most part better acquainted 
with the grosser corporeal pleasures than with 
the higher spiritual joys, for which indeed they 
had but little taste or capacity. They thus pic- 
tured to themselves the future life as entirely 
resembling the present, except in being exempt 
from all sufferings and unpleasant sensations. 
They believed that men would eat and drink, 
and satisfy their other animal appetites, in the 
same way there as here. Doctrines like these 
were taught by many of the most distinguished 
Rabbins who lived after the time of Christ, and 
even by Maimonides. It is said in Rev. ii. 7, 
and xxii. 2, 14, that the tree of life is placed in 
heaven, and its fruit is there eaten, as the means 
of obtaining immortality. This representation 
is figurative; but many of the Jews understood 
such descriptions literally, and believed in a 
kind of food for angels or gods, like nectar and 
ambrosia. It was against such gross material 
representations, which have no necessary con- 
nexion with 'this doctrine, but which were often 
associated with it. that the Sadducees directed 



their wit; and they made these incongruities 
ridiculous. This was their object when they 
proposed to Jesus the case of the woman who 
had several brothers, one after another in suc- 
cession, for husbands, Matthew, xxii. 24, seq. 

Others, better instructed, separated from their 
conceptions of the future state these grosser in- 
dulgences, and thus escaped this ridicule. They 
taught that we shall hereafter possess a more 
refined body, which will not be dependent for its 
nourishment upon food, and which will not pro- 
pagate the race. This was the opinion of most 
of the Pharisees at the time of Christ, and the 
same was afterwards maintained by most of the 
Jewish teachers. For when Christ said that 
" the risen saints would not marry, but be as the 
angels of God," the Pharisees entirely assented, 
Matt. xxii. 30, coll. Luke, xx. 39, and the texts 
cited from the Rabbins in Wetstein on Matt. 
xxii. 30. With regard to the use of food, Paul 
says expressly that it will entirely cease in the 
future world, ©so? xoi'hiav xai j3pu>fiata xat apy r t Gsi> 
— i. e., he will take them away, and enable us 
to do without them. 

The doctrine of the resurrection of the body 
was therefore common among the Jews at the 
time of Christ and the apostles. Vide Matt. 
xxii. ; Luke, xx. ; Acts, xxiii. 6 — 8. So, in 
John, xi. 24, the Jewess Martha speaks of the 
resurrection of the dead as a thing well known 
and undoubted. Josephus indeed (Ant. xviii. 
2) expresses himself doubtfully with regard to 
the Pharisees — '* thpy believe that the soul is 
immortal, and can easily return to life (di/aj3«o- 
<5cu);" and again, (Bell. Jud. ii. 7,) "they 
maintain that the souls of the pious pass into 
other bodies, (/AstaSaiveiv sis i-tspov ow/m.)'' 
Here Josephus, in his usual manner, so repre- 
sents designedly the Jewish doctrine, that the 
Greeks and Romans, to whom the resurrection 
of the body appeared absurd, should suppose 
the transmigration of souls to be intended, while 
at the same time the Jews should understand 
that the resurrection of the dead was spoken of. 
But from the texts cited from the New Testa- 
ment, it appears that the Pharisees, like the 
other Jews, believed in a resurrection. 

There were some among the Jews of the 
opinion that the wicked would not receive a 
body in the future world. Josephus says, in the 
passage cited, that even the Pharisees believed 
that the souls of the wicked would not pass into 
other bodies, (i. e., that the wicked would not 
rise again,) but that they would be eternally 
punished. It may perhaps be that this was 
taught by some at the time of Josephus ; but 
during the first century it was the more prevail- 
ing belief, even among the Pharisees, that both 
the righteous and the wicked would share in 
the coming resurrection. For in Acts, xxiv 
15, Paul says expressly that he agrees with the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 53i 



Pharisees and other Jews (in opposition to the 
Sadducees) in maintaining the avdcrtatiw, and 
that not only of the righteous, but also of the 
wicked (8uca£u>v ts xai aStxtov.) But frequent 
traces of this opinion are to be found in the 
Chaldaic Paraphrases, and in the writings of 
the Rabbins after the time of Christ, although 
it never became general among the Jews. This 
opinion came naturally from the idea that the 
happiness of the good would be incomplete 
without the body ; and so it was made a part 
of the wretchedness of the wicked not to come 
again into possession of a body. Another cause 
of this opinion is the allegorical explanation 
which they gave to some passages in the Old 
Testament — e. g., Ps. i. 5, a^an iJ)"?" 1- ^ 1 ?, Sept. 
ovx avaa-triaovtai oi aaefisls. Indeed, many main- 
tained the entire annihilation of the wicked, 
both as to soul and body. Vide Theod. Das- 
sovii Dissert, qua Judaeor. de resurrectione mor- 
tuorum sententia explicatur, c. 4 ; also Menasse 
ben Israel, De Resur. Mort., 1. iii. ; Amst. 1636, 
where many of the Jewish fancies respecting 
the resurrection of the dead are collected toge- 
ther. This opinion respecting the non-resur- 
rection of the wicked has found advocates even 
among Christian writers, especially of the Soci- 
nian party. 

Note. — The term avdatrjvcu lx vsxp^v is used 
once in the New Testament to denote the return 
of a departed soul to the world, and its re-ap- 
pearance in its supposed body of shade — viz., 
Luke, xvi. 31, coll. ver. 27, 28, 30; like the 
sense in which the phrase ab inferis exsistere is 
sometimes used. 

(3) Since the doctrine of the future resurrec- 
tion of the body was not very plainly taught in 
the books of Moses, or elsewhere in the Old 
Testament, (as it seems not to have been fully 
revealed in those earlier ages,) it is not to be 
wondered at that some of the Jews took occa- 
sion, or derived a pretext from this, either to 
deny this doctrine, or to doubt respecting it. 
This was done not merely by the Sadducees, 
who denied in general that the soul of man is 
of a nature different from his body, and that it 
can continue aftei* death, (vide Acts, xxiii. 8, 
seq., and Josephus, in the passage before cited,) 
on the ground that this doctrine is not taught 
by Moses, or in all the Old Testament; but also 
by other Jews, especially those, it seems, who 
had imbibed the Grecian (the Pythagorean or 
Platonic) philosophy, or who at any rate enter- 
tained ideas respecting the body similar to those 
taught in this philosophy, making it aprisun for 
the soul, from which it is freed by death when 
it returns to God. 

Thus, according to Josephus, (Bell. Jud. ii. 
7,) did the Essenes believe. They seem, there- 
fore, not to have maintained the resurrection of 
the body, although they believed in the immor- 



tality of the soul. Even Josephus carefully 
avoids the words avdotaais and avics'trjfic when 
he describes the doctrines of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees, and expresses himself ambiguously, 
in order not to displease the Greeks and Ro- 
mans, for whom he principally wrote, and to 
whom the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
body would appear not only new, but, according 
to the principles of the philosophy prevailing 
among them, offensive and absurd. And so 
Paul was ridiculed at Athens by the Grecian 
philosophers when he taught the resunection 
of the dead, Acts, xvii. 32, coll. xxvi. 6 — 8, 
and ver. 23, 24. At a later period, Lucian and 
Celsus employed their wit against the same 
doctrine in Origen and others ; and Pliny says, 
(Hist. Nat. ii. 7,) that if it is impossible for 
God to destroy himself, it is equally impossible 
for him, mortales seternitate donare, et in vitam 
revocare defunctos. There have always been 
some among the modern Jews who have been 
inclined to the doctrine of the Sadducees, and 
who have frequently been opposed by the Rab- 
bins. Vide Wetstein on Matt. xxii. 

SECTION CLII. 

THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE RE- 
SURRECTION OF THE BODY. 

I. What Christ and the Apostles have done for this 
Doctrine, and respecting the Doubts of some 
Christians. 

At the time of Christ and the apostles this 
doctrine had already become prevalent among 
the Jews, s. 151, II., although it was not 
clearly revealed in their older religious books. 
Through Christ it was now for the first time 
distinctly established anew, and revealed on 
divine authority. In those very discourses of 
our Saviour in which he designs to prove him- 
self divine in the highest sense, he plainly and 
definitely brings forward this doctrine as a con- 
stituent part of his religious system — e. g., 
Matthew, xxii.; John, v., viii., xi. Without 
this explanation and positive assurance on his 
part and that of his disciples, this doctrine 
would still have been doubtful. But those who 
regard Christ and his apostles as being what 
they profess to be, ought not and cannot be any 
longer in doubt. 

Christ and his apostles, however, corrected 
the false notions on this subject, which at that 
time prevailed among at least a large portion of 
the Jews, and made the whole matter more ob- 
vious and intelligible. But this doctrine has 
derived a special interest and demonstration 
from the fact that it is placed in the most inti- 
mate connexion with the history of the person 
of Christ, and that he is represented as the one 
to whom we are indebted for this benefit. It is 



532 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



most intimately ccnnected with his death, his 
resurrection, and his exalted state in heaven. 
Vide s. 119, ad finem, and s. 120, I. The 
apostles rested the doctrine of our resurrection 
mainly upon that of Christ, (cf. 1 Cor. xv. ; 1 
Thess. iv. 14;) they preached through Jesus 
(iv tfcp 'Irfiov) the resurrection of the dead, Acts, 
iv. 2 ; and hence they call him the first that rose 
from the dead ; Acts, xxvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 
et alibi. And from this Paul argues that if it is 
acknowledged that Christ rose from the dead, 
there can be no reason to deny or think it impos- 
sible that there should be a general resurrection 
of all men, 1 Cor. xv. 12, seq. Cf. Mosheim, 
Diss. "Qua docetur Christum Resurrectionem 
Mortuorum Corporum, Qualem Christiani Cre- 
dunt, e Tenebris in Lucem Revocasse et De- 
monstrasse," in his Dissertations "Ad Hist. 
Eccl. Pertinent," vol. ii. p. 586. Cf. also the 
Essay, "De Nexu Resurrectionis Christi.e 
Mortuis et Mortuorum," in "Scripta Varii Ar- 
gumentii," Num. ix. 

But this doctrine has been doubted or denied 
by many Christians in modern times. 

(1) It appears from 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Timo- 
thy, ii. 18, that even during the life of the apos- 
tles there were Christians to whom this doctrine 
seemed doubtful, if they did not wholly deny 
it, because it did not accord with their precon- 
ceived opinions, although it cannot be shewn 
that they at the same time denied the immorta- 
lity of the soul. These may have been either 
Gentile converts (for this doctrine was pecu- 
liarly offensive to the heathen, vide s. 151, ad 
finem,) or converts from Judaism, who had 
agreed on this point with the Essenes or the 
Sadducees. To the latter class belong Hyme- 
naeus and Philetus, %£yovtss trjv avdataaw rfiy\ 
yfyovfvcu. They probably understood the term 
avdetaais, as used in the Old Testament and by 
Christ, to signify the introduction of a person into 
a better state, or improvement of life. Vide s. 
151, I. This they supposed was already ac- 
complished by Christ, and that a resurrection 
in the literal sense is not to be looked for. 
Hence Paul endeavours (1 Cor. xv.) in part to 
obviate the objections of the Sadducees and 
Gentiles, and in part to separate and distinguish 
the true doctrine from the gross and earthly 
conceptions of many of the Jews. 

Still the opinion that there will be no restora- 
tion of the body has always found place among 
some Christians, especially among the Gnos- 
tics, who were led to reject this doctrine by 
their views respecting matter, and by their 
method of interpreting scripture. So thought 
Manes, in the third century, and his numerous 
followers in after times; also the Priscillianists 
in Spain; likewise Hierax at the commence- 
ment of the fourth century, who would allow 
of only a spiritual resurrection, or a resurrection 



of the soul. And so in all succeeding ages 
there have always been those among Christians 
who have either secretly doubted or openly reject- 
ed this doctrine. Cf. Dr. Hammer, Mortuorum 
in Vitam Revocatio, Sermonibus Christi Histori- 
cae Interpretationis ope Vindicata; Lips. 1794. 

(2) In modern times, many protestant theo- 
logians — e. g., Eckermann, Henke, Ammon, 
&c. — have endeavoured to explain away from 
the New Testament the doctrine of the resur- 
rection of the dead, notwithstanding the many 
clear passages by which it is supported. They 
have maintained that this dogma is no part of 
the Christian system. It was, in their view, 
through mere condescension to the prevailing 
opinions of the Jews that Christ and the apos- 
tles employed the common language on this 
point, which must accordingly be understood 
in a different sense — viz., a sense agreeing with 
the philosophical ideas prevailing in the nine- 
teenth century. There is not, however, the 
remotest hint, in all the words of Christ and 
the apostles, that they meant to be understood 
figuratively ; and if this method of interpretation 
were adopted, nothing of the Christian system 
would be left behind. That the words of Christ 
and the apostles are to be understood literally 
on this subject is plain from this, that it is af- 
firmed of Christ that he himself now possesses 
a body in his heavenly state in the kingdom of 
the blessed, and that we shall hereafter resem- 
ble him in this respect, and possess a body 
which will be like his glorious body, s. 153. 

II. Biblical Representation. 

The principal texts of scripture which relate 
to this subject are, John, v. 21 — 29 ; vi. 39, 
40 ; Matthew, xxii. 23, seq.; 1 Cor. xv.; Acts, 
xxiv. 14, 15; 1 Thess. iv. 13; Phil. iii. 21. 
With regard to the principal points taught in 
these passages, we remark, 

(1) The raising of the dead is ascribed ex- 
pressly to Christ, and it is represented as the 
last work which will be undertaken by him for 
the salvation of man. Paul says', 1 Cor. xv. 
22, seq., " As through Adam all die, so through 
Christ shall all be made ali've ; through him 
shall death, the last enemy, be conquered ; and 
then shall his work as Messiah be completed, 
and he will lay down his government." Christ 
himself said that he had received power for this 
purpose from the Father; John, v. 21, "The 
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and 
live. For as the Father ^co^v e%si iv tavtq> (i. 
e., is the original source of all life, and pos- 
sesses, as Creator, all-quickening power) he 
hath given to the Son also power to quicken the 
dead." And in John, xi. 25, where he is about 
to raise the lifeless body of Lazarus, he says 
respecting himself, that he is ^ a^vastaois xai & 
£o-/j, the one who would raise the body, and 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 533 



give life to the dead. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 14, and 
Rev. i. 18, ££« xtels tov aSov xal tov ^avatov. 

(2) All the dead will hereafter be raised, with- 
out respect to age, rank, or moral character in 
this world. So the New Testament teaches 
throughout; especially in opposition to the opi- 
nions of some Jews, s. 151, II. 2, ad finem, 
coll. s. 120, I. 2, note. So 1 Cor. xv. 22, iv 
'ASa^u, rtdvtss a7to^vr t 6xov6i, to which is opposed 
iv Xp«JT'9 7tdv?£$ £ux)7toi7]$r t 6ovta(,. Acts, xxiv. 
15, dvdot aai$ vexpciv Sweaccov tff xal dSixcov. And 
Christ himself says, John, v. 28, 29, " All who 
are in their graves shall hear the voice of the 
Son of man, and those who have done well 
BX7topsv6ovt(u stj avda-taaiv ^w^j, (i. e., etj^wjjv,) 
those who have done evil, ftj avdvtaciLv xplascos. 
This was a common mode of speech among the 
Jews, (vide Mace. vii. 14, coll. xii. 43, avdataatg 
£ tj £co»jw,) which is obviously taken from Dan. 
xii. 2. 

(3) The resurrection of the body, however, 
will not take place before the end of the world, 
or the general judgment. This, too, was the 
common doctrine of the Jews at the time of 
Christ; hence Martha says, John, xi. 24, "that 
she knows her brother will rise at the last day, 
{iv fvj iaxdfvj fffiipa.)" And this opinion is 
everywhere confirmed by Christ. In John, v. 
21, he not only connects the resurrection and 
judgment most intimately together, but in John, 
vi. 39, 40, he expressly promises his followers, 
avaatr t 6co [ftj £wjjv] iv -tvj ia%d-tyj q/J-spq. And 
so in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 28, the resurrection is 
placed in obvious connexion with the 7tapov<sla 
of Christ, after which the end of the world 
will immediately come; and in 1 Thess. iv. 15, 
it is said that those who survive the Ttapovslav 
of Christ will not attain either sooner or later to 
the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness than 
xoLti'/p£vt£$\ but that the dead and living will 
meet Christ at the same time, that they may be 
forever with him. Cf. Rev. xx. 11, seq. The 
resurrection of the dead, then, will take place 
when the Christian church on earth shall cease ; 
but this, according to the clear declarations of 
Christ, shall last until the end of the world. 

This cannot be reconciled with the hypothe- 
sis of Priestley, who attempts to shew that the 
resurrection will take place immediately after 
death. The same hypothesis has been advo- 
cated in a work entitled, " Auferstehung der 
Todten nach der eigentlichen Lehre Jesu 
Christi," by Joh. Fr. des Cotes, court preacher 
at Nassau; and still better in the " Beytragen 
zur Beforderung des verminftigen Denkens in 
der Religion," 2tes, Heft, s. 76, f., and 3tes, 
Heft, s. 39, f. It is indeed true that the disem- 
bodied existence of the soul beyond the grave 
is comprehended in the writings of the Jews 
and of the New Testament, under the term 
dvdrstaais' but this is not all which is comprised 



in this term ; and the dvdotaais will not be com- 
plete and perfect until the body also is raised. 
Vide s. 151, II. 2. 

Again; these Pauline texts are opposed to 
the opinion of the Chiliasts, that there is a two- 
fold resurrection ; an earlier, that of the pious, 
and a later, that of the wicked, or of the hea- 
then. An dvaGtaais 7tpu>t^ is, indeed, mentioned 
in Rev. xx. 5, 6, but the phrase admits easily 
of another interpretation. 

(4) As to the manner in which the resurrec- 
tion will take place, the New Testament gives 
us no definite information by which our curio- 
sity can be wholly satisfied ; and this, doubt- 
less, because such information could be neither 
intelligible to us nor of any use. The whole 
matter lies beyond the sphere of our knowledge. 
In speaking on this subject, Christ and the 
apostles sometimes make use of expressions 
which are figurative, (and of such there were 
many current among the Jews,) and sometimes 
they content themselves with proving the possi- 
bility and intelligibleness of the thing, in oppo- 
sition to doubters and scoffers, and with making 
it plain by examples. 

(a) Among the more figurative representa- 
tions and expressions, at least among those in 
which there is some intermixture of what is 
figurative, the representation contained in John, 
v., is commonly reckoned — viz., the representa- 
tion that the voice of Christ will penetrate the 
graves in order to awaken the dead. The image 
is here that of a sleeper who is aroused by a 
loud call ; and some understand the representa- 
tion as so entirely figurative that they exclude 
any audible or perceptible sound. It cannot, 
however, be shewn that Christ meant to ex- 
clude these. For in the resurrection of Laza- 
rus, of the young man at Nain, and the daugh- 
ter of Jairus, the voice of Christ was heard by 
them, and was the means of raising them to 
life. Still the voice, merely as such, is not the 
efficient cause of the work, but the almighty 
power accompanying it ; and so it is said of 
God, when he produces any effect by his cre- 
ative power, that he speaks, his voice sounds forth. 

The Jews supposed that the dead would be 
awakened by the sound of a trumpet. Traces 
of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic 
paraphrasts. At first this representation be- 
longed only to the figurative phraseology of 
prophecy ; for the people were commonly as- 
sembled by the sound of the trumpet, as was 
the case in the assembling at Sinai; and, in 
general, a trumpet was used to give signs and 
signals — e. g., for an onset in battle, &c. Af- 
terwards, this representation was literally un- 
derstood, and the size of the trumpet was sup- 
posed to be a thousand yards, and that it was 
blown seven times. Vide Wetstein and Sem- 
ler on 1 Cor. xv. 52. In this passage Paul uses 
2 y2 



534 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



.he term iv lex^^i ff^fotcyyt, {pofk7ti6£t yap,) — 
vsxpoi iyep^rfiovtcu. The same poetic phrase- 
ology is employed in 1 Thess. iv. 16, "Christ 
will come with a shout, with the voice of the 
archangel, and iv aoXriiyyi &sov (the trump 
given him by God), xoi ol vzxpoi ow/atfT'jjtfovT'at." 

In this representation there is much, indeed, 
which is figurative, and which belongs to the 
prophetic imagery, (as in Matt. xxiv. and in 
the Apocalypse,) and we are not now able to 
determine the meaning of all the particular traits 
in this picture. But the great thought which 
we must hold fast is very obvious — viz., Christ 
will solemnly and visibly appear in his majesty, 
and by his divine power raise all the dead. In 
other passages this truth is literally expressed — 
e. g., Phil. iii. 21, where it is said that Christ 
will do this by the power by which he is able 
to subdue all things to himself — i. e., by his 
evipysca, his omnipotence, which surmounts all 
difficulties and hindrances, and brings to pass 
what appears to men impossible. 

(&) The possibility of the resurrection of the 
dead is illustrated by Paul, in opposition to 
those who regarded it as impossible or contra- 
dictory, 1 Cor. xv. 35, seq., by comparing it 
with events of common occurrence in the natu- 
ral world, which seem to us less wonderful 
only because they are common. "How is it 
possible," it was asked, " that the dead should 
be raised V' (rtwj iyeipovtai vsxpol.) He re- 
plies: "The grain of corn cast into the ground 
cannot rise (£wo7to£,£tVou) until it die," (arto^W^, 
vide John, xii. 24.) This appears unintelligi- 
ble; and we should regard it as impossible if 
we did not see it actually accomplished. Why 
then should not God be able to raise men, and 
from their present bodies to produce others'? 
This is a fine comparison to illustrate the pos- 
sibility of this event. Again ; he shews, by the 
example of Christ, that the dead can be raised, 
ver. 12 — 14. And so the apostles always — e. 
g., Acts, iv. 2, xaifayysT^suv iv tf9 'IrjOov trjv 
avd^taatv vzxpuv. Cf. Morus, Diss. Inaug. ad 
1 Cor. xv. 35—55; Lipsiae, 1782. 

Note. — Many modern writers also have en- 
deavoured in various other ways to shew the 
possibility of the resurrection, and in this have 
availed themselves of the observations of natu- 
ralists. The common fault with these compa- 
risons is, that either the alleged facts are untrue 
and imaginary, or have nothing resembling the 
resurrection. It must be considered a fault of 
the first kind, to endeavour, as Fecht, Von 
Frankenau, and others, have done, to illustrate 
the resurrection by the alleged palingenesia of 
plants, or their restoration from their ashes, by 
means of a chemical process, which, in fact, is 
nothing more than an exhibition of the image 
of the plant. Vide Wiegleb, Natiirliche Magie. 



It is a fault of the other class to apply to this 
subject the observation, that there is only one 
mass of matter upon the earth, and that nothing 
is lost, nothing perishes, but still revives again, 
only under forms which are ever new. But 
this revivification is very different from the re- 
surrection of the dead; for in the former case 
there is no consciousness of the previous state. 
The inanimate body of a man may furnish nour- 
ishment to a beast of prey or to a vegetable, 
so that its parts will become incorporated with 
those of the beast or the plant, and contribute 
to their nourishment and growth ; but is this re- 
surrection 1 ? The principal thing in the resur- 
rection is the reunion of the soul with the body. 
But if these attempts have not succeeded, it 
is equally vain to attempt, by reasons a priori, 
to prove the impossibility of the restoration of 
the body. Respecting the question, whether 
our souls will remain after death without a 
body, nothing can be definitely determined by 
philosophy; but the negative opinion is not 
only liable to no philosophical objection, but has 
in its favour this fact, which is universally ob- 
served, that the different species of beings are 
not essentially altered, or as it were made anew, 
through all the changes to which they are sub- 
ject, but still preserve their peculiar and cha- 
racteristic features; so that the wonderful gra- 
dationin the works of God is preserved unbroken. 
Thus there are beings wholly spiritual, (as the 
angels are described to be in the scriptures;) 
there are beings composed of reason and sense, 
(as men, and perhaps many in other worlds;) 
and, finally, there are animate beings, consist- 
ing wholly of sense, and having no moral na- 
ture, (such as the beasts.) Since, now, the 
latter class subsists by itself, and is so separate 
from the foregoing that there is no example of 
a mere animal becoming a rational being, it may 
from this analogy be expected that it will be the 
same with man, and that, even in the future 
world, he will not become a merely spiritual 
being, but remain, as now, compounded of spirit 
and matter, and consequently will hereafter be- 
come again possessed of a body. 

SECTION CLIII. 

DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPECTING 
THE NATURE OF THE BODY WHICH WE SHALL 
RECEIVE AT THE RESURRECTION; AND THE OPI- 
NIONS OF THEOLOGIANS ON THIS POINT. 

I. Difference of the Future Body from the Present. 

That there is a difference between the two 
in respect to their entire constitution and the 
objects of their existence, we are taught by the 
New Testament. The body received at the re- 
surrection will be immortal, and is designed for 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 535 



an entirely different world from the present. 
The chief characteristic of the resurrection-body 
is placed by the New Testament in its d^ap- 
oCa, and its other excellences are derived from 
this. Vide the texts cited by Moms, p. 292, 
note 8. It cannot therefore be wholly consti- 
tuted like our present body, which is designed 
only for this world. 

One of the most important texts on this sub- 
ject is 1 Cor. xv. 50, adp| xai aliAa jSaffttat'cw 
&sov x7.rjpovofA.ilv ov dvvatat, — i. e., man, in the 
present imperfect state of his body, (Theodoret 
well says, r] ^vyjTfr) ^vais,) is incapable of hea- 
venly bliss. For the mortal body (<p£opa — i. 
e., Gupa ty^aptov,') cannot partake of eternal 
life, (d^apata, immortality.) Blood, according 
to the conception. of the whole ancient world, 
is found only among men and other animals 
who are nourished by the food of our earth, and 
not among the immortals, who do not taste of 
this food. The gods, therefore, in the opinion 
of the ancient Greeks, had no blood, (they were 
avai/*ove$,) and were immortal, because they ate 
no bread and drank no wine. 

In Homer, (II. v. 341, seq., vi. 142,) men are 
called, in opposition to the gods, fipotol, those 
who eat the fruit of the field. The body of the 
gods was regarded by them as a true body, and 
in human form, but only framed more perfectly, 
and from a finer material ; it was by no means 
that shadowy body ascribed to departed souls. 
Vide s. 150, s. 66, II. And so was the body of 
those raised up at the last day conceived of, as 
no mere shadowy form, but as a true body, 
though without flesh and blood. 

The Greeks supposed that their gods ate a 
food peculiar to themselves, nectar and ambro- 
sia; and so the great multitude of the Jews 
supposed that those who are raised to be inha- 
bitants of heaven partake of a kind of heavenly 
food. Vide s. 151, II. 2, and s. 59, II., respect- 
ing angels. There have always been Chris- 
tians who have maintained the same thing; and 
even in modern times some have expressed 
themselves at least doubtfully on this point — e. 
g., Michaelis. But the passage, 1 Cor. vi. 13, 
(already cited, s. 151,) teaches exactly the con- 
trary. The gods of the Greeks were supposed 
to marry and to indulge in the sexual propensi- 
ties; and some Jews imagined the same thing 
with regard to the angels and those raised from 
the dead; but this idea is rejected by Christ, 
Matt. xxii. 30. Cf. the sections before cited. 

Here, then, is a separation between what is 
true and false in the prevailing popular concep- 
tions, which is worthy of notice. In these con- 
ceptions, there is often much which is true, and 
the germ of truth, which is fully developed. But 
the learned often mistake in rejecting certain 
ideas merely because they are the common con- 



ceptions of the people. Not so Christ ; he only 
distinguishes between what is false and true in 
these conceptions. 

Respecting the nature of the heavenly body, 
and its difference from the earthly, Paul ex- 
presses himself very fully in 1 Cor. xv. 35, seq., 
7toia> acofiati tpxovrac ; sc. e sepukris. (a) He 
takes a comparison from a grain of wheat, from 
which an entirely new body is developed, whose 
form and properties are very different from 
those of the seed sown, (b) God makes mate- 
rial things in very different forms and with dif- 
ferent constitutions, on account of their differ- 
ent destination. The body of fishes, of birds, 
and of beasts, is not the same; their nature and 
attributes are wholly different, ver. 39 — 41. 
And so must our heavenly body be organized 
differently from the earthly, because it has a 
different end. (c) The heavenly body will have 
great pre-eminence over the earthly. Ver. 42, 
seq., arteipstao (i. e., sepelilur, sc. crw^ua) i v 
*£opd — i. e., <p^ap?'oV, perishable. The sequel 
is to be explained in the same way : for iv 
a-ti/xca read a'ti/xov, deformed, di figured ; ac^eves, 
feeble, powerless; -^vxixo, carnal, animal; be- 
cause in this life the animal propensities must 
be indulged. But when it is raised it will be 
a body iv aty^apota — i. e., adaptor, immortal, 
indestructible ; ivbo^ov, beautified, glorious ; hv 
vaiov, strong and mighty ; and 7tv£v/xatix6v, spi- 
ritual, exempt from everything which is imper- 
fect in the material body ; — in short, our earthly 
body is, like Adam's, from the earth, (ix <yr]s, 
%o'Cx6v ;) the future body will, like that which 
Christ now possesses, be a heavenly body, (i| 

O'vpoU'O'i;.) 

And here Paul makes the observation, that 
Christ had not at first (jtputov, while he here 
lived upon the earth,) that more perfect spiri- 
tual body, (rcvsvi-iatixov,) but that which was 
natural (^vzwov,) and afterwards (iTtma, after 
his ascent to heaven) that which was spiritual. 
Therefore he did not possess it immediately 
after his resurrection, while he was yet upon 
the earth, for he then ate and drank, John, xxi., 
but he first received it when he passed into the 
heavens. Cf. s. 97, II. 

That our body will be like that of Christ is 
plainly taught, ver. 49 ; tyopsGOfAev tr\v slxova tov 
irtovpaviov [Xptoroy] ; and still more plainly, 
Phil. iii. 21, "Christ will transform (fAttaozT 
jUowi'oeO our earthly perishable body (a^ua za- 
7t£LvaG£Los) into the resemblance of his heavenly 
body, (cto/ia 5o|^.) Cf. Rom. vi. 9. This 
heavenly body is commonly called glorified, for 
so badoZacfAsvov is translated. This translation, 
however, may give occasion to unfounded ac- 
cessory conceptions with regard to the splen- 
dour &c. of the heavenly body. The simple 
I idea conveyed by this expression is, glorious, 



536 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



excellent, perfected, ennobled. Vide Moras, p. 
292, n. 8. 

Those who are alive at the last day will not 
indeed die, like other men, s. 147, II. Still, 
according to the doctrine of Paul, their bodies 
must undergo a change, like that which it was 
necessary for the earthly body of Christ to ex- 
perience before it entered the heavens. Vide 
1 Cor. xv. 51, 7t<xvt£$ usv ov (non sollicitanda 
lectio,) xoijxyj^soii^a, 7idvtes 8s aXT^ayrj^o^s^a — 
i. e., their bodies must be changed, in order 
that they may be adapted to their future desti- 
nation and abode, and be no more perishable 
and destructible. For the mortal body must 
become immortal, ver. 53, coll. 2 Cor. v. 4; 
1 Thess. iv. 15, seq. In Phil. iii. 21, this 
change is expressed by the word ^0.6x^^1- 
£W. Some of the Jews also appear to have 
maintained that such a change would take place 
with those alive at the last day. Vide Wetstein 
on 1 Cor. xv. 54. 

Such is the doctrine which we are plainly 
taught in the New Testament respecting the 
constitution of our future body. Let not, there- 
fore, the Christian doctrine be charged with all 
the absurdities and fancies which dreaming 
heads have suggested respecting the nature, 
form, size, and uses of the spiritual body, nor 
with the fictions even of some theologians re- 
specting corpore pellucido, penetranti, illocali, 
invisibili, prasfulgido, impalpabili, &c. From 
the texts already cited, as well as from others, 
it is plain that the more perfect body which we 
shall hereafter receive will contribute very much 
to our heavenly blessedness, as, on the other 
hand, our present frail body greatly conduces 
to our present suffering and imperfection. But 
how far our glorified body will affect our future 
blessedness cannot be definitely determined 
from the holy scriptures. Vide Moras, p. 299, 
300, s. 10. 

Note. — The Bible says indeed plainly, that 
the bodies even of the wicked will be again 
raised, but it nowhere informs us particularly 
what their nature and state will be. The first 
Christian teachers, however, imagined without 
doubt that their state would be such as to ag- 
gravate the sufferings of the wicked ; as they 
supposed, on the other hand, that the body 
which the righteous would receive would con- 
tribute to the heightening of their joys and 
blessedness. 

II. Identity of the Future with the Present Body. 
Notwithstanding the difference between the 
body which we now have and that which we 
shall possess hereafter, it is still taught in the 
schools of theology that our future body will 
be, in substance, the same with the present. 
Vide Moras, p. 291, seq., s. 3, note 6. This, 



however, is denied by some, who maintain that 
the body which believers will receive at the re- 
surrection will be entirely new, of a totally dif- 
ferent kind, and not having a particle of the 
present body belonging to it. So in modern 
times have some Socinian theologians taught ; 
also Burnet in his work, Be Statu Mortuorum 
et Resur gentium, c. 9 ; likewise Less, in his 
" Praktische Dogmatik," and others. They 
ground their opinion upon the fact that the parts 
of our body in the process of time, and in the 
ordinary course of nature, became incorporated 
with many thousand other human bodies. To 
which, therefore, they ask, of all these thou- 
sand, do they appropriately belong"? And if 
every human body should again receive all the 
parts which ever belonged to it, it would be a 
monster. 

In order to obviate these difficulties, it is justly 
remarked by others, that there is no reason to 
suppose that each and every part of the earthly 
body will be hereafter raised, but only that its 
finer elementary materials will be restored. For 
the grosser parts of the body, which appear to 
exist only for the filling out of the whole, and 
for holding it together, (like the stones for fill- 
ing up in a building,) are in constant flux, and 
fall off from the body while yet it cannot be said 
that we have lost our body or received a new 
one. In respect to these grosser parts, our body 
in early childhood was totally different from our 
present body, and in old age it will be different 
from that which we now have. Still we call it, 
through these different periods, our body, and 
regard it as being the same. In common language, 
we say, with our eyes we have seen, or with these 
hands we have done, what took place twenty or 
thirty years ago. In this way we may speak 
of identity in a more general and popular sense, 
and, understood in this sense, the identity of the 
body through all the periods of its existence 
may be spoken of without impropriety. It is 
not implied in this that the body will be here- 
after constituted of precisely the same materials 
which it here possesses, nor that it will again 
have the same form, limbs, and organs, which it 
now has, but that, from all the parts of which 
our present body is composed, the most fit and 
the most noble will be chosen by God, and of 
these the heavenly body will be constructed. 

What conceptions the first Christian teachers 
formed as to the manner of this, we cannot 
clearly ascertain; nor is it possible that, while 
we remain upon the earth, we should be able to 
understand this matter fully. So much, how- 
ever, is plain, that the inspired teachers did not 
believe that an entirely new body would be 
hereafter created for us, but that there would be 
a kind of identity, in the popular sense of the 
term, between the heavenly and earthly body. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 537 



Such is the implication of the terms so often 
employed by them, to awaken or call forth the 
dead from their graves, (vide John, v. 28, 29;) 
also of the representation that the sea and Sheol 
should give up their dead, Rev. xx. 13, seq. ; 
and especially of the passage, 1 Cor. xv. 35 — 38. 
It is here plainly implied, that the present mor- 
tal body contains the germ of the heavenly body, 
in the same way as the germ of the plant lies in 
the seed, from which, after it is dissolved and 
dead in the earth, the plant is developed, and, 
as it were, raised to life. Hence, according to 
Paul, the future body has at least as much in 
common with the present as a plant has with 
the seed from which it springs. It will be still 
the same body which we shall hereafter possess, 
only beautified and ennobled ([letacx^o^t^o- 
tta/ov,) Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 42, 52, 53. This 
is thus expressed by theologians : there will be 
a renovation of one and the same substance, 
and not the production of a wholly new mate- 
rial. Vide Morus, p. 291, 292, note 6, ad s. 3. 
Some modern writers have endeavoured to illus- 
trate this matter by the application to it of the 
whole of Bonnet's Theory of Development; 
but this is not contained in the words of Paul, 
although his doctrine bears some resemblance 
to it. 

The church-fathers are not entirely unanimous 
in their opinions respecting the identity of the 
body. The earlier fathers gave no very definite 
opinion on the subjeet, but contented themselves 
with saying in general that we should receive 
again the same body ; so Justin the Martyr, and 
Athenagoras, and Tertullian, in their books, Be 
Resurrectione. They appear, however, to have 
had rather gross conceptions on this subject. 
Origen, in the third century, was the first who 
philosophized with regard to the heavenly body, 
and undertook to determine accurately respecting 
its nature. He defended the resurrection of the 
body against those who denied it, and taught at 
the same time that the substance of the human 
body — the essential and characteristic form by 
which it is to be discerned and distinguished 
from others — remains unaltered. He also con- 
troverted the opinion of some who supposed that 
those who are raised will again be invested with 
the same gross, material body as before. It was 
his opinion that the grosser parts will be sepa- 
rated, and that only the germ or fundamental 
material for the new body will be furnished by 
the old. He and others expressed their views 
by the following formula — viz., we shall here- 
after have au/xa iov-to {idem) y.sv, a%X' ov -toiovio 
(ejusmodi,) De Prin. ii. 10. 

But such a statement was far from being satis- 
factory to many at that period, and especially to 
the gross Chiliasts. They wished to keep alive 
the hope of having still the same flesh as at pre- 



sent, in order to their eating, drinking, &c. So 
Nepos, Methodius, Theophilus of Alexandria, 
and others. With these Hieronymus, in the 
fourth century, agreed, and opposed the opinion 
of Origen, contending that the same body would 
be raised, with the same limbs and nerves, and 
with flesh and blood in the proper sense, and 
even with distinction of sex, although he did not, 
indeed, affirm that the animal and sexual appe- 
tites would be indulged in the heavenly world. 
Epiphanius, however, who was a declared oppo- 
nent of Origen, says expressly that the bodies 
of the raised must have teeth, since otherwise 
they could not eat. What kind of food they 
would have he did not pretend to say, but left 
for God to determine. 

The opinion of Origen was adopted, in the 
fourth century, by Gregory of Nazianzen, Basi- 
lius, Chrysostom, and all the opponents of the 
Chiliasts. Those who maintained the resurrec- 
tion of the body in its grosser parts were all, 
with the exception of Hieronymus, Chiliasts. 
The opponents of Origen, among the Greeks and 
Latins, began now to insist, that not merely the 
resurrection of the body (corporis) should be 
taught, but also carnis (crassse.) The older fa- 
thers used corpus and caro interchangeably (as 
was also done in the older symbols), and in- 
tended by the use of these terms to denote only 
that there would be no new creation of a body, 
since both of these terms, according to the He- 
brew usus loquendi, are synonymes ; as when we 
speak, in reference to the Lord's Supper, of the 
corpus and caro Christi. But since the term 
caro implies, according to the same idiom, the 
associated idea of weakness and mortality, it was 
abandoned by many who wished to use language 
with more precision, and instead of it, the phrase 
resurrectio corporis was adopted. It was on this 
account that the Chiliasts insisted so much the 
more urgently upon retaining the terms cap| 
and caro. 

Note. — Works on this subject, Cotta, Theses 
Theol. de Novissimis, in Specie de Resurrec- 
tione Mortuorum ; Tub. 1762. Hermann, Pflug, 
Beweiss der Moglichkeit nnd Gewissheit der 
AuferstehungderTodten, 1738. On the history 
of this doctrine, besides the works of Hody and 
Burnet, cf. Ge. Calixtus, De Immortalitate 
Animi et Resurrectione Carnis, and especially, 
W. A. Teller, Fidei Dogmatis de Resurrectione 
Carnis, per quartuor priora saecula enarratio ; 
Halle and Helmstadt, 1766, 8vo ; with which, 
however, the student should compare the addi- 
tions and corrections made by Ernesti in his 
"Neues Theol. Bibliothek," b. ix. s. 221—244- 
[Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 658, s. 152. Nean 
der, All. K. Geschichte, b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1088, 
and especially 1096; also b. ii. Abth. iii. 3 
1404— 1410.— Tr.] 



538 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



SECTION CLIV. 

OF THE LAST APPEARING OF CHRIST BEFORE THE 
END OF THE WORLD; THE VARIOUS OPINIONS ON 
THIS SUBJECT; ALSO RESPECTING THE MILLEN- 
NIAL KINGDOM, AND THE UNIVERSAL CONVER- 
SION OF JEWS AND GENTILES. 

I. The Last Appearing of Christ. 

Christ often spoke of his future coming (ita- 
poutfta), using this phrase in different senses. 
It sometimes denotes figuratively the destruction 
of the Jewish state, and the consequences of 
this event, particularly the advantages which 
would result from it to the Christian doctrine 
and church; as the spiritual kingdom of Christ 
could not be truly established in the earth until 
this event should take place; Matt. xxiv. and 
xvi. 27, 28. Again, it denotes his visible appear- 
ing to judge the world; Matt. xxv. 31, seq. 
When Jesus spoke of his appearing, his disciples 
duringhis life commonly conceived at once of his 
coming to establish an earthly kingdom. And 
when he spoke of his coming at the destruction 
of Jerusalem, they supposed that he would then, 
with his followers, destroy the hostile Jerusa- 
lem, triumph over his opponents, and commence 
his new earthly kingdom. 

The 24th of Matt, was for the most part under- 
stood in this way by many at that time. With 
this they then connected the idea that the end of 
the world was near at hand, because, according 
to the opinion of the Jews, Jerusalem and the 
temple would stand until the end of the world. 
Vide s. 98, II. 3. Hence in the passage, Matt. 
xxiv. 3, the disciples of Jesus connect the two 
questions, when will the temple be destroyed? and, 
what are the signs of the end of time? In what 
Christ said, Matt, xxiv., he referred to the dif- 
fusion of his new religion, the establishment 
and confirmation of his spiritual and moral 
kingdom, on which the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem would have a favourable influence. Vide 
Matt. x. 23 ; Luke, xii. 40. But he said this in 
part in the style of prophetic imagery, as in 
Matt. xvi. xxiv. To these questions Christ re- 
plied with great wisdom and forecast — to the 
first, in Matt. xxiv. 4 — 25, 30; and to the se- 
cond, Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. He taught them 
plainly only so much as it was needful for 
them to know at that time. The rest he taught 
them in prophetic figures, which were not as 
yet entirely intelligible to them, and the mean- 
ing of which they afterwards learned. Their 
false expectations were not therefore cherished 
and approved, but neither were they prema- 
turely contradicted. Full information on this 
subject was among those things which they 
were not then able to bear, and respecting 
which they were to receive more full informa- 
tion after the ascension of Christ to heaven; 



John, xvi. 12. And this more full information 
they actually received. For from that time they 
abandoned their expectations of a Jewish king- 
dom, and thenceforward looked for no other 
coming of Christ than that at the general judg- 
ment. As to what Christ and his apostles 
taught respecting the nature and extent of his 
spiritual and heavenly kingdom, vide s. 97 — 99. 

II. The Belief of a Millennial Kingdom of Christ 
upon the Earth, or Chiliasm. 

(1) Origin of this belief The Jews supposed 
that the Messiah at his coming would reign as 
king upon the earth, and would reside at Jeru- 
salem, the ancient royal city. The period of his 
reign they supposed would be very long, and 
therefore put it down at a thousand years, which 
was at first understood only as a round number. 
Respecting the Jewish ideas of the Messianic 
kingdom, cf. s. 89, and s. 118, I., together with 
Wetstein's selections from Jewish authors on 
Rev. xx. 2. This period was conceived of by 
the Jews as the return of the golden age to the 
earth, and each one formed to himself such a 
picture of it as agreed best with his own dispo- 
sition, and that degree of moral and intellectual 
culture to which he had attained. Many anti- 
cipated nothing more than merely sensual de- 
lights, others entertained better and more pure 
conceptions, &c. 

The same remark applies to many of the Ju- 
daizing Christians. Although Jesus had not 
yet appeared as an earthly king, yet these per- 
sons were unwilling to abandon an expectation 
which to them was so important. They hoped, 
therefore, for a second coming of Christ to es- 
tablish an earthly kingdom, and transferred to 
this kingdom everything which the Jews had 
expected of the first. The apostles wholly 
abandoned this opinion after the ascension of 
Christ, and expected no other coming than that 
at the judgment of the world, 1 Cor. xv., and 
elsewhere. The fact, however, that these Jew- 
ish ideas had taken deep root in the minds of 
many Christians in the apostolic age, may be 
argued from 1 Thess. iv. 13, seq., ch. v., and 
2 Thess. ii. 

Many have endeavoured to find this idea even 
in the Apocalypse, especially xx. 1 — 8. But 
John does not there speak of Christ reigning 
visibly and bodily on the earth, but of his spi- 
ritual dominion, resulting from the influence of 
Christianity, when it shall at length be univer- 
sally diffused through the earth-— a kingdom 
which will last a thousand years, used as a 
round number to denote many centuries, or a 
long period. Thus does it appear that even 
during the first century there were many opi- 
nions upon this subject among Christians which 
deviated widely from the doctrine of the apos- 
tles. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 53? 



[Note. — The scriptural ideas upon which the 
belief in a millennium rested are more specifi- 
cally stated by Neander, Kirchengesch. b. i. 
Abth. iii. s. 1089. As the world was made in 
six days, and, according to Ps. xc. 4, a thou- 
sand years is in the sight of God as one day, so 
it was thought the world would continue in the 
state in which it had hitherto been, for six thou- 
sand )rears; and as the Sabbath is a day of rest, 
so will the seventh period of a thousand years 
consist of this millennial kingdom as the close 
of the whole earthly state. — Tr.] 

(2) In the second century, the doctrine of the 
future earthly kingdom of Christ became more 
and more widely diffused, and in a large portion 
of the Christian world it was finally predomi- 
nant. Its first zealous advocate was Papias, in 
the second century ; and he was followed by 
Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, and most of the 
Montanists. This doctrine was also adopted by 
some of the heretics — e. g., by Cerinthus. It 
was not, however, held by all in the same man- 
ner. Most taught that the church would have 
to suffer much from Anti-christ (the seducer and 
persecutor) ; and that Christ would then visibly 
return and destroy his power ; 2 Thess. ii. Then, 
it was supposed, all worldly power would cease, 
the pious be raised from the dead (^pio^ dvcwT'a- 
0i$), assemble in Jerusalem, and standing under 
Christ, their king, would reign with him a thou- 
sand years. 

As to the pleasures then to be enjoyed, the 
conceptions of some were very gross, those of 
others more chastened. In forming their pictures 
of this period they drew largely from the Apo- 
calypse, which they interpreted in many different 
ways. Origen, in the third century, was the 
first who wrote in opposition to this doctrine, and 
who gave a different interpretation to the texts 
of scripture to which appeal was made by the 
Chiliasts. On this account, this doctrine fell 
into disesteem among the learned. In the third 
century, Dionysius, Bishop at Alexandria, wrote 
against Chiliasm in opposition to Nepos, Bishop 
in Egypt, and in his work denied that John 
wrote the Apocalypse, because his opponents 
were accustomed to derive their doctrine princi- 
pally from this book. 

[Note. — It was in Phrygia, the seat of the 
spirit of religious enthusiasm, that Chiliasm 
chiefly prevailed; and from thence it spread. 
Here belonged Papias, Irenajus, Justin the Mar- 
tyr, &c. Two causes contributed to prevent 
this doctrine from becoming more universally 
prevalent in the early church — viz., opposition 
to Montanism, and the influence of the school at, 
Alexandria. The visionary conceptions which 
the Montanists entertained and inculcated re- 
specting what would take place in the millen- 
nium, brought the whole doctrine into disrepute ; 
and all the opponents of Montanism opposed 



these gross Chiliastic conceptions as belonging 
essentially to that scheme. The allegorizing me- 
thod of interpretation adopted by the teachers of 
the Alexandrine school enabled them to avoid 
the gross conceptions of the millennium to which 
those who adopted the literal mode of interpre- 
tation were led. By applying this principle to 
the interpretation of the Apocalypse, they could 
take away the support which the Chiliasts de- 
rived from it without excluding the book from 
the sacred canon. — Tr.] 

(3) The seed of the doctrine of gross Chili- 
asm has always remained in the Christian 
church. This doctrine, however, has shewn 
itself in different forms, and has been taught 
sometimes in a more visionary manner, and at 
other times less so. Respecting the time when 
this millennial kingdom will commence, there 
has been no general agreement of opinion. 
Many suppose it will take place before the re- 
surrection ; others, not until afterwards. 

At the time of the Reformation this belief in 
a millennial, earthly kingdom of Christ was re- 
vived and widely spread by the enthusiastic ana- 
baptists, Thomas Miinzer and his adherents. 
They themselves wished to establish this king- 
dom of Christ with fire and sword, and to put 
an end to all worldly power; they encouraged 
rebellion. Hence Luther and Melancthon set 
themselves against this doctrine with great zeal 
and earnestness. Vide Augsb. Conf. Art. xviii. 
It shewed itself again, however, in the protest- 
ant church. 

In the seventeenth and eighteenth century 
Spener was charged with teaching Chiliasm ; but 
he was far removed from this. He only expressed 
frequently the hope that the spiritual kingdom 
of Christ would not only continue in the world, 
but would be much more widely diffused than it 
now is, and hereafter would become absolutely 
universal. And this expectation (spes meliorum 
temporurti) is perfectly accordant with the holy 
scriptures. This is the point to which all the 
middle part of the Apocalypse refers — viz., from 
chap. xii. 18 to xx. 10, the victory of Christ over 
heathenism, and all sin and corruption on the 
earth, and the general diffusion of Christianity ; 
after which the end of the world and the kingdom 
of the saints will follow, chap. xx. 11 — xxii. 5. 
This, one might call (if he wished) Biblical 
Chiliasm; in this there is nothing of enthusiasm : 
and even for those who do not live to see this 
period the anticipation of it is consoling and 
animating. 

But Petersen, who came from the school of 
Spener, at the end of the seventeenth and com- 
mencement of the eighteenth century, inculcated 
in his writings various enthusiastic ideas on this 
subject. The same doctrine was taken into fa- 
vour about the same time by Burnet, in England, 
1 in his work, " De Statu Mort. et Resnrg." At 



540 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



a later period, Bengel, in Germany, went a great 
deal too far in many points in his interpretation 
of the Apocalypse. So, many theologians of 
Wurtemberg, Crusius and his disciples, and La- 
vater in Switzerland. 

A good development of the history of this doc- 
trine is contained in Corrodi's " Kritische Ge- 
schichte des Chiliasmus;" Frankfort und Leip- 
zig, 1781 — 1783. It was principally occasioned 
by Lavater's views on this subject. 

[Note. — Neander, in his history of this doc- 
trine, (b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1090,) suggests the im- 
portant caution that we should not allow our- 
selves, through disgust at the extravagant visions 
of enthusiasts about the millennium, to decide 
against what we are really justified in hoping and 
expecting as to the future extension of the king- 
dom of Christ. As the Old Testament contains 
an intimation of the things of the New, so 
Christianity contains an intimation of a higher 
order of things hereafter, which it will be the 
means of introducing; but faith must necessa- 
rily come before sight. The divine revelations 
enable us to see but a little, now and then, of 
this higher order, and not enough to form a 
complete picture. As prophecy is always ob- 
scure until its fulfilment, so must be also the 
last predictions of Christ respecting the destiny 
of his church, until the entrance of that higher 
order. 

There are three degrees in the manner of 
holding this doctrine, described as crassus, sub- 
tilis, subtilissimus, according to the proportion 
in which enthusiastic and visionary conceptions 
are mingled with the scriptural idea of the 
future kingdom of the Messiah. The lowest 
kind is characterized by the belief of the visible 
appearance and reign of Christ upon the earth, 
a resurrection of the saints before the general 
judgment, and their living with Christ in the 
enjoyment of worldly splendour and luxury for 
a thousand years. In this form it was held by 
many of the ancient Montanists, and by the 
anabaptists in the sixteenth century. The more 
refined and scriptural doctrine of the millen- 
nium, as held by Spener, Vitringa, and others, 
excludes the idea of the visible appearance of 
Christ, and does not insist upon the definite 
period of a thousand years, but only holds to 
the future universal extension of the spiritual 
kingdom of Christ. Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 
665.— Tr.] 

III. Future Conversion of Jews and Gentiles. 

The doctrine of the universal conversion of 
the Gentiles, and especially of the Jews, to be 
hoped for hereafter, has been for the most part 
taught by the advocates of the grosser kind of 
Chiliasm. Still the former doctrine stands in 
no necessary connexion with the latter. And 
many protestar.t theologians, who are far from 



assenting to any unscriptural views of the mil 
lennium, have adopted this doctrine — e. g., Mi 
chaelis, Koppe, and others still more lately. 
But some theologians connected with both of 
these doctrines other opinions which do not en- 
tirely accord with scripture, or which at least 
are not in all parts clearly demonstrable from 
scripture — e. g., Burnet, Bengel, Crusius. 
Hence Ernesti and his whole school were very 
much opposed to this doctrine, and would not 
at all allow that even the remotest hope of the 
conversion of the Jews is authorized by the 
New Testament. 

It has happened with regard to this subject, 
as it often does in all the departments of human 
knowledge, that opinions in which there has 
been an intermixture of what is erroneous and 
incapable of proof have been on this account 
entirely rejected, instead of being carefully 
sifted, in order to separate the true from the 
false, that which may be proved from that 
which is incapable of demonstration. The doc- 
trine itself of the future conversion of the Jews 
involves nothing questionable or enthusiastic, 
if it be understood only to imply that the apos- 
tles believed and taught that the Jews would 
hereafter abandon their prejudices and their 
hardness of heart, possess a taste and suscepti- 
bility for Christianity, and cordially unite them- 
selves with the Christian church. When this 
will take place, and by what means it will be 
brought about, the apostles determine nothing; 
and with regard to these points nothing is 
known. But an expectation of this event is 
found in their writings. 

Two things on this subject are certain — viz., 
(1) That it was always a current doctrine among 
the Jews that all the Gentiles would at last be- 
come incorporated in the kingdom of the Mes- 
siah ; and with reference to this event they ex- 
plained many passages in their prophets, which, 
when read impartially, plainly teach this very 
thing — e. g., Ps. xxii. 28; Is. ii., xii., xl. — lxvi.; 
Zech. xiv. 9, 16, coll. Rev. xv. 4. And this 
same hope is clearly expressed by Paul, espe- 
cially in Rom. xi. 

(2) The Jews, at the time of the apostles and 
afterwards, explained many passages in their 
prophets as referring to the future restoration 
of their people at the time of the Messiah, 
(Deut. xxx. ;) and these passages are refer- 
red in the New Testament, and by Paul, to 
the same event ; from whence it is clear that 
the apostles taught and inculcated the same 
thing with the ancient prophets — e. g., Isaiah, 
x. 21 ; lix. 20; Jer. xxxi. 1, seq. ; Hosea, iii. 
5 ; Zech. xiv. 6 ; ix. 10. These passages, in- 
deed, have all been differently interpreted in 
modern times. Cf. Doederlein's work, " Giebi 
uns die Bible Hoffnung zu einer allgemeinen 
JudenbekehrungT' But the Jews understood 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 541 



these passages to refer to the restoration of 
their nation, and the New Testament gives 
them the same explanation. This is histori- 
cally certain; and upon this everything de- 
pends, when the question is, Whether the New 
Testament teaches this doctrine? Vide Schottgen, 
in the book, "Jesus, der wahre Messias;" 
Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum ; and 
Koppe on Rom. xi. 

We may come now more easily to the exa- 
mination of the celebrated passage, Romans, 
xi. 25, seq. Ernesti and others understand the 
rtaj 'iGparfk 6ic$'qG£<tat, thus : all " Israel can be 
delivered ;" but this does not accord with ver. 
31, iVa avtol s%e^u)6v, and ver. 32, tov$ rtdvtas, 
eTisj^. We cannot render these clauses, in 
order that God can have pity ; no, he will ac- 
tually have mercy upon them. Nor can we see 
any reason, according to this interpretation, why 
Paul should adopt such a high and elevated tone 
with regard to a matter which is self-evident, or 
how he could call this /xvctrj^ov. It is also 
equally unintelligible, if this were all, what 
should have induced Paul so solemnly to cele- 
brate and magnify the divine wisdom, ver. 33 — 
36. But everything is plain and consistent if 
Paul is understood here to speak the language 
of prophecy. He proceeds on the ground of the 
expectation universally prevalent among his 
countrymen, and authorized by the ancient pro- 
phets ; he rectifies their ideas with regard to 
their future restoration, discards their false con- 
ceptions, their hopes of earthly good, and then 
says, with great assurance, tnat all Israel will 
hereafter be converted to Christ, as all the Gen- 
tiles will come to worship him ; although, when 
he wrote, there was no human probability of 
either of these events. But in all this he does 
not give the least countenance to the enthusi- 
astic conceptions frequently entertained on this 
subject. He does not fix any definite time. But 
theologians have often been unwilling to allow 
that Paul affirmed the final conversion of the 
Jews, because enthusiastic ideas have often 
been connected with this doctrine, or because 
they have regarded this event as either impos- 
sible or improbable, since after the lapse of 
eighteen centuries there are no signs of its ac- 
complishment. 

The sentiment of this passage is as follows : 
" I must propose one other important subject for 
your (i. e., the Gentile converts) consideration — 
a subject with which you have been hitherto un- 
acquainted, and which has therefore been disre- 
garded by you — in order that you may not be 
proud of your advantages over the unbelieving 
Jews: namely, some of the Jews will continue 
unbelieving until all the Gentiles who are 
chosen by God (ni^pcu^a e>vwv) shall have 
believed in Christ. (This will therefore first 
take place.) But when this is first brought 



about (xoaj ovtu for xai tots or trtsita, vide 
Koppe) — i. e., when all the Gentiles have first 
become believers, (now follows the /xvatr^iov,) 
then will the nation of the Israelites also experi- 
ence salvation, ^co^rjcsstai,') by embracing the 
Christian faith. For thus it is said in the scrip- 
tures, — The Deliverer (Messiah) will come out 
of Zion (David's line), and then will I free 
Jacob from his sins, (Is. xlix.)" Cf. Koppe 
on this passage. Paul here quotes the same 
passages of the Old Testament from which the 
Jews had always proved that an entire restora- 
tion of their nation was predicted by the pro- 
phets ; though he did not understand them, as 
they often did, to refer to an external, civil re- 
storation. 

SECTIOxN CLV. 

OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, AND THE END OP 
THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD. 

I. The General Judgment. 

The following texts may be considered as the 
most important relating to the last judgment — 
viz., Matt. xxv. 31; John, v.; 2 Thess. i. 7 — 
10; 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17; 2 Pet. iii. 7—13; 1 
Cor. xv. ; and Rev. xx. 11. In illustration of 
this doctrine, it may be observed, 

(1) According to the uniform doctrine of the 
scriptures, the judgment of the world will fol- 
low immediately after the general resurrection; 
and then will be the end of the world, or of its 
present constitution. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 

(2) This doctrine of a general judgment of 
the world was also prevalent among the Jews 
at the time of Christ and the apostles ; although 
they frequently associated with it many incor- 
rect notions. This doctrine, as well as that of 
future retribution and resurrection, was, without 
doubt, more and more developed and illustrated, 
under the divine guidance and direction, by the 
prophets and teachers of the Jewish nation who 
lived after the exile. Vide s. 149, II. 2. This 
was done more particularly at the same period 
of time in which those other doctrines were de- 
veloped. But there are also passages in Daniel 
which allude to this event — e. g., chap. xii. 

Before the exile the doctrine of the judgment 
as a solemn, formal transaction at the end of the 
world, was not clearly taught. At that time the 
Jews held only the general truth, that God is 
the righteous Judge of the world, who in his 
own time would pronounce righteous sentence 
upon all men, according to their deserts, and 
bring all their works, even the most secret, to 
light. Vide Ps. ix. 5 — 9 ; Eccles. ix. 9 ; xii. 13, 
14. The doctrine which was afterwards deve- 
loped among the Jews, and in the form in which 
it existed among them at the time of Christ, 
was expressly authorized and confirmed by him 
2Z 



542 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



as true, and as constituting a part of his reli- 
gious system ; in such a way, however, as to ex- 
clude the false additions of the Jewish teachers. 

(3) The holding of this judgment as well as 
the raising of the dead is commonly ascribed in 
the New Testament to Christ, and represented 
as a>commission or plenipotentiary power, which 
the Father had given to the man Jesus as Mes- 
siah. Thus it is said, Rom. ii. 16, ©?6j (cf. ver. 
6) xpivzl ta xpvrttd dv^pwrtwv 5ta 'irjaov, and 
Christ himself says, John, v. 22, 25, xpiaw 
Ttdeav SeStoxs ta via. Vide Matthew, xvi. 27; 
Acts, x. 42; xvii. 31. Cf. s. 98, II. 3, and 
Morus, page 294, note 8; and page 296, note 3. 
Christ himself assigns it as the reason why God 
had entrusted to him the holding of this judg- 
ment, that he is a man, (ylo$ av^pJirtov ;) John, 
v. 27, coll. Acts, xvii. 31, avr]p. God has con- 
stituted him the Judge of men, because he is 
man, and knows from his own experience all 
the sufferings and infirmities to which our na- 
ture is exposed, and can therefore be compas- 
sionate and indulgent; Heb. ii. 14 — 17, coll. 1 
Timothy, ii. 5. 

(4) Names given in the scriptures to ike last 
judgment. The time of this judgment, and the 
judgment itself, are called in the passages al- 
ready cited, •yj/xipa (ov) Kvptov or 'lrj6ov, Xptff- 
tov, x. if. "k. ; also <•/] pi pa fxtydxiq ("?ru dv), Jude, 
ver. 6; xplais (sometimes written xatdxpi<si$), 
xplfia, rtapovaca Xptfftfoxi, 1 Thess. iv. 15; 2 
Thess. ii. 1 ; is^dtyj r)ftspa, John, vi. 39, 40, 44. 
Hence the ecclesiastical name of this transac- 
tion, judicium extremum, or novissimum, the last 
judgment, because it will take place at the end 
of the world that now is. The term, the last 
judgment, is not used, however, in the New 
Testament. Nor are the phrases ia%dtri r)uipa 
and to icxdtov tuv q/xtpov used exclusively with 
reference to the end of the world. They often 
designate merely the future, coming days — e. g., 
2 Timothy, iii. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3 ; like D>p'n nnrw, 
Genesis, xlix. 1. They sometimes also denote 
the last period of the world, or the times of the 
Messiah — e. g., Heb. i. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, like Wto? 
atwvwv, aid>v fxivkav, Heb. Nan dSij.'. 

(5) The time of the judgment, or of the end of 
the world, and its signs or precursors. Vide 
Morus, p. 304, s. 13. According to the assur- 
ance of the apostles this time is unknown. Yet 
many of the Jewish Christians at the times of 
the apostles supposed that it would take place 
immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem 
and of the Jewish state, because the Jews be- 
lieved that their temple and city would stand 
until the end of the world. Vide s. 98, II. 3. 
But the apostles never affirmed this ; they never 
pretended to the knowledge of a divine revelation 
resppcting the time, but contented themselves 
with saving, that it would come suddenly and 
unexpectedly, like a thief in the night ; 1 Thess. 



v. 2 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10. In the first of these texts, 
Paul shews that this event was not so near as 
some at that time supposed ; and in the second, 
Peter shews that the actual coming of this event 
could not be doubted, merely because it seemed 
to some to be long delayed. In 2 Cor. iv. 14, 
Paul considers himself and his contemporaries as 
being among those whom God would raise from the 
dead through Christ ,• he did not therefore expect 
himself to survive the judgment of the world, 
although from other passages it might seem that 
he at least wished he might. It is not by chance 
that the declaration of the apostles — that they 
could not determine the time and the hour of 
this event, is so clearly preserved to us. Were 
there any reason to charge them with the oppo- 
site, to what contempt would their doctrine be 
exposed ! 

As to the signs and precursors of this event 
nothing can be very definitely determined from 
the New Testament; nothing certainly by 
which we can draw conclusions wkh any 
safety with regard to the precise time of its oc- 
currence. No indications pointing definitely to 
the day and hour can be expected, especially 
for this reason, that the coming of this event is 
always described as sudden and unexpected. 
Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 10. Even with regard to the far 
less important revolution among the Jewish 
people, in the overthrow of their state, it is said 
(Matt. xiii. 32) that the exact time when it 
would take place no one but God knew, not 
even the angels, nor the Son of man in his hu- 
miliation. And yet there have never at any 
period been wanting persons who have under- 
taken to determine definitely the time and hour 
of this event. They have commonly reasoned 
from some, and often very arbitrary, explana- 
tions of the Apocalypse, and from calculations 
drawn from the same. This ingenious search 
after the time and hour of the fulfilment of the 
divine predictions is not according to the mind 
and will of Christ, since it usually leads to the 
neglect<of what is more important; and besides, 
nothing is gained by it. Vide Acts, i. 7. 

In the earliest age of the church many sup- 
posed that the end of the world would follow 
immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem. 
When this event was past, other calculations 
were made. In the tenth century the opinion 
was very prevalent in the Western church that 
the end of the world was near at hand, because, 
according to Rev. xx. 3, 4, the millennial king- 
dom should commence after a thousand years. 
This belief had the effect, upon the multitudes 
who adopted it, to render them inactive ; they 
squandered and consumed their goods; they 
suffered their houses to go to ruin ; and many 
families were reduced to want. Hence, in the 
eleventh century there was more building and 
repairing done than at any other period. 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 543 



From this we may conclude that the way to 
promote the conversion of men is not, as it were, 
to compel them to it by the fear of the proximity 
of the last day. Even in modern times many 
theologians, and those too of some celebrity, 
have entered into calculations of this kind, 
drawn chiefly from the Apocalypse — e. g., 
Bengal, Crusius, and others. 

What we are definitely taught on this subject 
in the New Testament may be stated as fol- 
lows : — The Christian church will hereafter be 
subjected to great temptation from heathen pro- 
faneness, from false, delusive doctrine, and ex- 
treme moral corruption, and will seem for a 
time to be ready to perish from these causes; 
but then Christ will appear, and, according to 
his promise, triumph over this opposition; and 
then, and not till then, will the end of the world 
come ; Christ will visibly appear and hold the 
general judgment, and conduct the pious into the 
kingdom of the blessed. This is the distinct doc- 
trine of Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3 — 12, and is taught 
throughout the Apocalypse, xii. IS — xxii. 5, 
and this is sufficient for our instruction, warn- 
ing, and comfort. 

(6) As to the nature of the general judgment, 
and the manner in which it will be conducted 
by Christ, we can state on scriptura. authority 
only the following particulars : — 

(a) That Christ will pronounce sentence upon 
all men, even on those who have lived in pa- 
ganism, Rom. ii. 6, seq. ; Acts, xvii. 71. Vide 
s. 98, II. 3. Final sentence will then, too, be 
pronounced upon the evil spirits, Jude, ver. 6 ; 
2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt. xxv. 41. For other texts, 
cf. Moras, p. 294, not. 1 and 3. 

(b) This sentence will be righteous and im- 
partial, 2 Tim. iv. 8. Every one will be judged 
according to the light he has enjoyed, and the 
use he has made of it. Those who have had 
the written law will be judged according to 
that; the heathen, according to the light of na- 
ture, Rom. ii. 13 — 16. Those who have had 
greater knowledge, and more opportunities and 
powers for doing good than others, and yet have 
neglected or abused them, will receive a severer 
sentence, &c. ; Matthew, x. 15, 11, 23, 24; 
2 Thess. i. 5. Morus, p. 294, note 4. 

(c) This will be the final and irrevocable sen- 
tence, by which rewards will be bestowed upon 
the righteous, and punishments allotted to the 
wicked, for their good and evil actions, and the 
thoughts of the heart; Matt. xxv. 31 — 46; 2 
Cor. v. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 5; Rom. ii. 6, 16. 

Note. — It has for a long time been disputed 
among theologians, whether the judgment of the 
world will be an extern^'., visible, formal trans- 
action, or whether the mere decision respecting 
the destiny of man, the actual taking effect of 
retribution, is represented under the image of a 
judicial proceeding, like what is now common 



among menT The reasons alleged on both 
sides of this question are stated by Gerhard in 
his Loci Theologici. Cf. Morus, p. 295, note 
1. The latter opinion is adopted by many the- 
ologians at the present time— e. g., Eckermann, 
Henke, and others, who contend that this whole 
representation was intended by Christ and the 
apostles to be merely figurative, and should be 
so understood. It is clear, however, from the 
New Testament, unless its language is arbitra- 
rily interpreted and explained away, that the 
first Christian teachers everywhere represent 
the judgment of the world as a solemn, visible 
transaction, distinct from retribution ,• though 
its more particular nature cannot be distinctly 
determined or made plain to us ; and is therefore 
described in the New Testament, for the most 
part, by figures. This is very well expressed 
by Morus, p. 295, s. 6. If the New Testament 
taught the contrary opinion, its doctrines would 
not be consistent with each other. For, accord- 
ing to the New Testament, man will possess 
a body, even in the future life, and continue 
to be, as he now is, a being composed both of 
sense and reason ; and so there, as well as here, 
he will have the want of something cognizable 
by the senses. 

With regard to this subject, as well as many 
others, the Bible is accustomed to connect figu- 
rative and literal phraseology together, and to 
use these modes of speech interchangeably, in 
order to render clear and impressive to our 
minds many things which could not otherwise 
be represented plainly and forcibly enough. 
Thus it is, for example, in the discourses of 
Christ on this subject, Matt. xvi. 27, seq., and 
chap. xxv. By all which he has there said in 
a figurative style, the idea should be impressed 
that Christ will visibly appear in a majestic 
manner, pronounce some innocent and others 
guilty, and treat them accordingly. In the 
courts of the ancients it was a custom to place 
the former on the right hand, the latter on the 
left ; and every one who heard this discourse o! 
Christ knew what he meant by this representa- 
tion. He taught the same truth without a 
figure, when he declared that some should be 
pardoned and made happy, and others pro- 
nounced guilty and punished. 

II. Scriptural Doctrine respecting the End of the 
World. 
(1) Even the ancient Hebrews believed that 
as the world had a beginning it would also have 
an end ; and so their prophets speak of the grow- 
ing old of the heavens and the earth. They 
teach that hereafter the whole material creation 
will become unfit for its purposes, and useless 
to its inhabitants, and that God will then lay 
by the aged heavens, like an old, worn-out gar 
ment, and create a new heaven and a new earth. 



544 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



Vide Ps. cii. 10 — li, where this is described, 
in opposition to the eternity and unchangeable- 
ness of God. Cf. Heb. i. 10—12. 

Our seeing the constant fluctuations and 
changes of all things, the wasting and falling 
away of the hardest rocks, and other observa- 
tions of a similar nature, may lead to the same 
thought, and give it confirmation. 

Hence we find, even in the Old Testament, 
such expressions as the following: until the 
heavens are no more, until the sun and the moon 
are no more — e. g., Job, xiv. 12. So in Ps. 
lxxii. 5, 7, 17, where a time far removed is ex- 
pressed by this phraseology ; for this period 
was naturally conceived of as far distant, since 
changes of this nature are found by experience to 
require a long time. Moreover, in the prophets, 
Such expressions as the destruction of the heavens 
and of the earth, the growing pale and darkening 
of the sun and moon, are often used figuratively, to 
denote great changes in the world, the calamity 
and downfall of particular states and countries, 
&c. — e. g., Is. xiii. (respecting Babel ; chap. 
xxxiv. ; Ezek. xxii. ; Rev. vi. ; Matt. xxiv. 29, 
seq. On the contrary, the phrases new heavens, 
new earth, the clear shining sun, &c, are used 
to denote the welfare and returning prosperity 
of states — e. g., Isaiah, lxv. 17; lxvi. 22 ; xiii. 
10, et passim. But these very figurative ex- 
pressions presuppose the literal idea. 

(2) From these more general ideas and ex- 
pectations respecting great changes hereafter to 
take place in the universe, there was developed 
among the Jews and other nations the more de- 
finite idea of the future destruction of the world, 
and especially of our earth. Everything, it was 
supposed, would be hereafter shattered and de- 
stroyed, but not annihilated ; since from the 
ruins of the ancient structure there would come 
forth again a renewed and beautified creation. 
Philo says, (De Vita Mosis, torn. ii. p. 144, 
ed. Mangey,) via avafyalvttat, q yyj, fist a xd^ap- 
avv, the earth shall appear new again, after its 
purification, even as it was after its fkst creation. 
He calls this renovation 7ta%iyytv£6iav, vsutfpiG- 
fibv tZiv G-toixiluv, x. t. %. ; as the Greeks also 
denominated the same thing, ita'kiyyzvzGlav tfwv 
oTmv — an expression used by the stoics with 
reference to this subject. This end of the 
world was not then described as its entire de- 
struction or annihilation. 

Now Christ and the apostles taught the doc- 
trine of the end of the world very distinctly and 
plainly, and sanctioned what was previously 
known on this subject by their own authority. 
Vide Matt. v. 18; Luke, xxi. 33; 2 Pet. iii. ; 
1 Cor. xv. ; Rev. xx. 1 1, et passim. But among 
the Jews and some others the doctrine prevailed 
that this change would be effected by a general 
conflagration. This belief in such a conflagra- 
tion did not at first rest upon any arguments 



drawn from a profound knowledge of natural 
philosophy ; such, for example, as the supposi- 
tion of a fire burning in the centre of the earth, 
or the approximation of a cornet, as many mo- 
dern writers have thought, but they were first 
led to this belief, and afterwards confirmed in 
it, by thoughts like the following : Water and 
fire are the two most powerful and efficient ele- 
ments, by which the most violent changes are 
produced in the earth, and by which desolations 
and renovations are effected. Now we find tra- 
ditions among all nations respecting great floods 
of water, and the desolations occasioned by them 
in the earliest times. According to Moses, the 
water originally covered the whole earth, and 
the dry land issued from thence, and then fol- 
lowed Noah's flood. It was now the expecta- 
tion that hereafter the other still more fearful 
element — the fire, which even now often causes 
such terrible desolations, would effect a still 
more amazing and universal revolution than 
that effected by the water, and that by this 
means the earth would be renewed and beau- 
tified. 

It was by such analogies as these that this 
traditionary belief was confirmed and illustrated 
among the heathen nations where it prevailed. 
It was afterwards adopted by many philoso- 
phers into their systems, and advocated by them 
on grounds of natural philosophy. Thus, for 
example, Heraclitus among the Greeks con- 
tended for such a conflagration and regenera- 
tion of the earth by means of fire; and so after 
him the stoics. Cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. ii. 
46 ; and Seneca, Quaest. Nat. ii. 28—30. 

This doctrine of the perishing of the world by 
fire was unquestionably prevalent among -the 
Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles, al- 
though Philo does not accede to it in his book 
Ilspt d^apcrtaj xoa/xov. The arguments which 
he there brings against it are, however, ex- 
tremely meagre, built partly upon arbitrary me- 
taphysical reasoning and partly upon a play on 
the word xoapos. 

In one passage of the New Testament this 
doctrine is very distinctly stated, 2 Pet. iii. 
7 — 13. It cannot be thought that what is here 
said respecting the burning of the world is to be 
understood figuratively, as Wetstein supposes; 
because the fire is here too directly opposed to 
the literal water of the flood to be so understood. 
It is the object of Peter to refute the boast of 
scoffers, that all things had remained unchanged 
from the beginning, and that therefore no day 
of judgment and no end of the world could be 
expected. And so he says that originally, at the 
time of the creation, the whole earth was cover- 
ed and overflowed with water, (Gen. i.,) and 
that from hence the dry land appeared and the 
same was true at the time of Noah's flood. Bui 
there is yet to come a great fir e-r evolution. The 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 545 



heavens and the earth (the earth with its atmo- 
sphere) are reserved, or kept in store, for the 
fire until the day of judgment; ver. 10, at that 
time the heavens will pass away (jiapipx^a^ai) 
with a great noise, the elements will be dissolved 
by fervent heat, and everything upon the earth 
will be burnt up. The same thing is taught in 
ver. 12. But in ver. 13, Peter gives the design of 
this revolution ; it will not be an annihilation, 
but " we expect a new heaven, and a new earth, 
wherein dwelleth righteousness" — i. e., an en- 
tirely new, altered, and beautified abode for man, 
to be built from the ruins of his former dwell- 
ing-place, as the future habitation of the pious. 
Cf. Rev. xxi. 1, seq. This will be very much 
in the same way as a more perfect and an im- 
mortal body will be reared from the body which 
we now possess. The passage, Rom. viii. 19, 
seq., also treats of this renovation and beauti- 
fying of the world. Vide Morus, p. 303, note 5. 
Cf., with regard to the subjects here discussed, 
Suskind's "Magazin fur christliche Dogmatik 
und Moral," lOtes St. No. 2, respecting the 
Jewish ideas of the Messiah as the governor of 
the world and the raiser of the dead ; and No. 3, 
the declarations of Jesus, in which he ascribes 
to himself the raising of the dead, the judging 
of the world, and a kingdom at the end of the 
world. 

SECTION CLVI. 

OF THE PUNISHMENTS OF HELL, OR ETERNAL 
CONDEMNATION. 

I. Scriptural Names and Representations of these 
Punishments, and of the Place where they will 
be inflicted. 

According to the doctrine of the Jewish na- 
tion at the time of Christ — a doctrine which he 
himself receives as true, and expressly author- 
izes and confirms — the wicked are miserable, 
and the righteous happy, even immediately 
after death. Cf. what was said respecting the 
intermediate state s. 150. Still it is not until 
after the day of judgment that the perfect bless- 
edness of the righteous or the entire misery of 
the wicked will properly commence, and they 
enter upon the state of full retribution. The 
former will then go to an abode of joy, the latter 
to a place of sorrow. Vide Wetstein on Matt. 
xxv. 46. The condition of wicked men and of 
the fallen angels before the day of judgment is 
described by the sacred writers as like that of 
malefactors while'yet in prison, before the final 
judicial sentence is pronounced upon them. 

The place in which they are confined is pro- 
perly called Taprapos, and it is a part of Hades 
— ^the invisible world in which bad angels and 
ungodly men are reserved until the day of judg- 
ment. Vide s. 150, I. 1. This place is also 
69 



called £o<j>oj, or axotos, in the epistle of Jude and 
in 2 Pet. ii., and pvhaxq in 1 Pet. iii. 19. Even 
in this place the wicked are represented as in- 
deed unhappy, but their complete misery will 
not commence until after judicial sentence has 
been pronounced upon them. 

The place of punishment after judgment is not 
revealed in the scriptures, nor is it known dis- 
tinctly whether the Jews conceived of it as under 
the earth, or as entirely beyond the boundaries 
of our planet. The term afys is not used in the 
scriptures to designate specifically this place, 
for "?iN$ and actyj are the names given to the 
kingdom of the dead, where the righteous and 
the wicked both abide after death. Vide s. 
150, I. The more appropriate designations of 
this place are TuCfivtj rtvpos xal §siov ; Rev. xx. 
10, 15; and yswa, Matt. x. 28; v. 22; on 
which place cf. Wetstein. 

The names given to these punishments them- 
selves, both before and after judgment, are in 
part figurative, and many terms which were 
commonly applied by the Jews to this subject 
are retained in the New Testament. These 
images are taken from death, capital punish- 
ment, tortures, prisons, &c. ; and it is the design 
of the sacred writers, in using such figures, to 
awaken the idea of something terrible and fear- 
ful ; future punishment, they mean to teach, will 
awaken in men the same feelings of distress as 
are produced by the objects employed to repre- 
sent it. Some of the more general and literal 
names of this punishment are oto^pos attovtoj, 
2 Thess. i. 9 ; opyrj fxixkovaa, Matt. iii. 7 ; xo'Kar 
61$ aiix>vio$, Matt. xxv. 46 ; fidoaioi, Luke, xvi. 
24, 25. The more figurative names are £avcwo$, 
John, viii. 51 ; xi. 26 ; $uvato$ Bsin-po^, Rev. 
xx. 6, &c. Vide s. 147, II. ; cx6to<; and £o<}>o$ 
•tov gxotovs, Matt. xxv. ; Jude, ver. 6, seq. ; nvp 
aiuviov, $%.b% 7tvp6$, Matt. xxr. 41; xviii. 8; 
2 Thess. i. 9 ; the worm which dies not, Mark, 
ix. 44, where the comparison is taken from 
Isaiah, lxvi. 24; jtopsvsa^av drfo ©fov, in oppo« 
sition to beholding the countenance of God, Matt* 
xxv. 41 ; having no rest day nor night, Rev. 
xiv. 11, &c. 

Many of the Jews, and some even of the 
church fathers, took these terms in an entirely 
literal sense, and supposed there would be literal 
fire &c. in hell. But nothing more can be in- 
ferred with certainty from the words of Christ 
and the apostles than that they meant by these 
images to describe great and unending misery. 
The name adopted by the schoolmen, damnatio 
seterna, is founded upon Heb. vi. 2, where we 
find xpifxa (i. e., xatdxptfxa) aiaviov. Cf. 
2 Thess. i. 9. 

IL Nature of Future Punishments. 

It is certain from the plainest declaration of 
the holy scriptures (cf. s. 155), and may also 
2 z2 



546 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



be proved on grounds of reason, that the happi- 
ness or misery of the future world stands in 
most intimate connexion with the present life. 
The rewards and blessedness of the world to 
come are to be regarded as the salutary and hap- 
py consequences of the present life and conduct 
of men; and, on the contrary, the punishments 
there to be endured, and future misery, as the 
sad and fatal consequences of their character 
and actions in this world. Our future good or 
evil estate is dependent upon our present life 
and character. 

The divine punishments are divided into na- 
tural and positive, or arbitrary, and both these 
kinds belong to future punishment. Vide s. 31, 
86, 87. 

(1) Among natural punishments we may 
reckon the following — viz., 

(a) The loss or deprivation of eternal happi- 
ness, poena darnni, Matt. vii. 21 — 23, drfo^copftV? 
art' ipo v. Matt. xxii. 13; xxv. 41: "in all of 
these texts the representation is figurative. Cf. 
2 Thess. i. 9, hi%y]v tioovoiv — arCo rtpotfwrtoi; tov 
Kvplov — i. e., removed from Christ, and from 
the happiness which he enjoys. 

(b) The painful sensations which are the na- 
tural consequence of committing sin, and of an 
impenitent heart, poena sensus. These punish- 
ments are inevitable, and connected as closely 
and inseparably with sin as any effect with its 
cause. From the consciousness of being guilty 
of sin arise regret, sorrow, and remorse of con- 
science, and it is these inward pangs which are 
the most grievous and tormenting. The con- 
science of man is a stern accuser, which cannot 
be refuted or bribed, and the more its voice is 
disregarded or suppressed here upon earth, the 
more loudly will it speak hereafter. For man 
will then be no longer surrounded, as he is in 
this world, with external circumstances, which 
distract the mind, and prevent him from seeing 
the heinousness of sin, and from reflecting on 
his unhappy situation. He will pass at once 
from the noise and tumult of the things of sense 
into the stillness of the future world, and will 
there awake to reflection. He will then see 
how he has neglected the means of improvement 
and salvation, and to what irreparable injury he 
has thus exposed himself. 

Add to this, that the propensity to sin, the 
passions and evil desires which in this world 
occupy the human heart, are carried along into 
the next. For it cannot be supposed that they 
will be suddenly eradicated as by a miracle ; and 
this is not promised. But these desires and 
propensities can no longer find satisfaction in 
the future world, where man will be placed in 
an entirely different situation, and surrounded 
by a circle of objects entirely new; hence they 
will become the more inflamed. From the very 
aature of the case it is plain, therefore, that the 



state of such a man hereafter must necessarily 
be miserable. Shame, regret, remorse, hope- 
lessness, and absolute despair, are the natural, 
inevitable, and extremely dreadful consequences 
of the sins committed in this life. 

(2) But there are also, according to the most 
incontrovertible declarations of the scriptures, 
positive or arbitrary punishments — i. e., such as 
stand in no natural and necessary connexion 
with sin. Vide Morus, p. 297, note 2. This 
is, indeed, denied by those who will not allow 
that God inflicts any arbitrary punishments. 
Vide s. 31, 36, 87. But even if they suppose 
they can make their opinion appear probable on 
philosophical grounds, they ought not still to 
assert that the doctrine of positive punishments 
is not taught in the Bible. All the ancient na- 
tions who believed in the punishments of hell 
regarded these punishments, at least the most 
severe and terrible of them, as positive or arbi- 
trary — i. e., as depending on the will of the 
Legislator; as, on the other hand, they regard- 
ed the rewards of the pious as not merely natu- 
ral, but principally arbitrary. 

There are, in fact, but few men in such a state 
thafthe merely natural punishments of sin will 
appear to them terrible enough to deter them 
from the commission of it; and so, for this rea- 
son, if for no other, the doctrine of positive pu- 
nishments should be retained in popular instruc- 
tion. Experience also shews that to threaten 
positive punishment has far more effect,' as well 
upon the cultivated as the uncultivated, in de- 
terring them from crime, than to announce and 
lead men to expect the merely natural conse- 
quences of sin, be they ever so terrible. Hence 
we may see why it is that the New Testament 
says little of natural punishments, (although 
these beyond a question await the wicked,) and 
makes mention of them in particular far less 
frequently than of positive punishments; and 
why, in those passages which treat of the pu- 
nishments of hell, such expressions and images 
are almost always employed as suggest and 
confirm the idea of positive punishments. Cf. 
No. I. of this section ad finem. 

Those, therefore, who consider Jesus to be 
a teacher of truth, in whose mouth there was no 
guile, must necessarily believe also his often 
repeated declarations on this subject. It is very 
inconsistent in some modern philosophers and 
theologians to admit of positive rewards for the 
pious, and yet deny positive punishments for the 
wicked. We are, indeed, compelled to admit 
positive rewards, because those which are merely 
natural are not sufficient to complete the mea- 
sure of our happiness. If the positive rewards 
are probable on grounds of reason, how can it 
be said that positive punishments are impossible 
and contradictory ! It was, moreover, the pre- 
vailing doctrine among the Jews at the time of 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 54: 



Christ, that punishments are for the most part 
positive, and that they affect even the body. 
Hence the words of Christ, drtoXsVat $v%r\v xui 
a&ua, Matt. x. 28. For since the impenitent 
will be again clothed with a body at the resur- 
rection, this body must participate in their pu- 
nishment, as the body of the righteous will par- 
ticipate in their reward. 

As to the question, In what these positive or 
corporeal punishments will consist ? no definite 
answer can be drawn from the Bible, because 
it is plainly intended that all the representations 
made of this subject should be understood figu- 
ratively and by way of comparison — i. e., these 
punishments will consist of pains like those, 
e. g., arising from fire or from a gnawing worm. 
We are so little acquainted with the state in 
which we shall be hereafter, and with the na- 
ture of our future body, that no strictly literal 
representation of future punishments could be 
made intelligible to us. Even the place in 
which the wicked are confined will contribute 
much to their misery, also the company of other 
sinners, and of evil spirits — a circumstance 
particularly mentioned in Matt. xxv. 41. 

Note. — The efforts of those who have endea- 
voured to persuade even the common people 
and the young that no positive divine punish- 
ments are to be expected in the world to come, 
have ever had a most injurious tendency, as 
the history of all ages will shew. For the 
deep-rooted expectation of such punishments 
among all nations has always been a check 
upon the more gross outbreakings of sin. It 
was from this expectation that the oath derived 
its sacredness and inviolableness. It is often 
said by Cicero and others, that all philosophers, 
both Greek and Roman, are agreed in this, that 
the gods do not punish, deos non nocere. But 
as soon as this opinion of the philosophers be- 
gan to prevail among the people, it produced, 
according to the testimony of all the Roman 
writers, the most disastrous consequences, 
which lasted for centuries. No subsequent ef- 
forts could ever succeed in awakening a fear 
of divine punishments in the minds of the great 
multitude. Hence resulted the deplorable de- 
generacy of the Roman empire. Truth and 
faith ceased, chastity became contemptible, 
perjury was practised without shame, and 
every species of luxurious excess and of cruelty 
was indulged. To this corruption no philoso- 
pher was able to oppose any effectual resist- 
ance; until at length its course was arrested 
by Christianity. 

Among Christians themselves such efforts 
have always been followed by similar disastrous 
consequences. 

(1) The papal sale of indulgences, which be- 
came general during the twelfth and the suc- 
ceeding centuries, and especially after the cru- 



sades, had a tendency, in the same way, to 
diminish the fear of positive divine punishments, 
because it was supposed one might purchase 
exemption from them. The result of this delu- 
sion was equally deplorable in this case as in 
the one before mentioned; the greatest immo- 
ralities prevailed throughout Christian lands; 
until this evil was arrested by the reformation, 
and the fear and the love of God were both 
awakened anew in the hearts of Christians. 

(2) A similar result took place in England in 
the latter half of the seventeenth century, when 
some rationalist philosophers, during the reign 
of Charles II., undertook to emancipate the 
minds of men from the fear of positive divine 
punishments. The effect of their efforts is well 
known from history. Frivolity of spirit, im- 
moralitjr, sins of impurity, and all the dreadful 
consequences of forgetting God, suddenly pre- 
vailed. 

(3) The principles of these English philoso- 
phers were gradually diffused through France 
by the writings of Voltaire, Diderot, and others ; 
and after 1740, they were also adopted and dis- 
seminated by some even in Germany. The 
history of our own times shews us sufficiently 
what has been the result of these principles here. 

It is agreeable to the gospel — it is, indeed the 
very spirit of the gospel, to represent God as 
Love. It is also right for the evangelical teacher, 
indeed, it is his duty, to preach respecting the 
infinite love of God, especially as it is manifested 
in Jesus Christ. In this his whole heart should 
live. But he must never forget to teach in what 
order and on what conditions alone man becomes 
susceptible of these proofs of the divine favour. 
The gospel itself, though at a loss for words 
sufficiently to magnify the infinite love of God, 
represents also his penal justice in a light ex- 
tremely terrifying to all who do not fall in with 
this prescribed order, and threatens them with 
the most severe and inevitable punishments in 
the world to come. Both of these views should 
therefore be connected together. Cf. the small 
work written by Jacobi, Was soil ich zur Beru- 
higung meiner Seele glauben ? Was soil ich hoffen 
bey den mannichfaltigen Meinungen dzr Gelehr- 
ten?" 1790; s. 83—96. 

III. The Justice and Necessity of the Punishments 
of Hell ,- the Sins which being Condemnation, in 
their train ,- and the different Degrees of Punish- 
ment. 

(1) That there will be punishments in the 
future state nas been believed by nearly all men 
who have reflected impartially upon the world, 
the destiny of man as a moral being, and upon 
the attributes of God. It is obvious to every 
one that the earth is not the theatre of the divine 
justice, and that the lot of man here below is 
not justly apportioned to his moral conduot. 



548 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



The greatest criminal often goes unpunished, 
and lives, perhaps, in external peace and pros- 
perity ; and the pious, good man is often unre- 
warded, lives in adverse external circumstances, 
and frequently is severeljr persecuted. All this, 
now, appears to contradict our ideas of the di- 
vine justice, goodness, and wisdom, and makes 
the destination of man an inexplicable riddle. 

As soon, therefore, as men came to believe in 
a future life, and began to reflect upon the dis- 
proportion which now exists between the moral 
character and the happiness of men, the thought 
would naturally suggest itself to their minds 
that the proper theatre of divine justice will be 
first opened in the world to come, and that the 
punishment of the sinner there may be as confi- 
dently expected as the reward of the righteous, 
since in this way only can either the justice or 
goodness of God be vindicated. Vide the Arti- 
cle on Providence, especially s. 71, VI., ad 
finem. Also Michaelis, Ueber die Lehre von 
der Siinde, s. 314. Such, accordingly, is the 
uniform representation of the New Testament. 
Vide 2 Thess. i. 5, seq. ; Rom. ii. 6, seq. 

(2) Causes of condemnation. According to the 
conceptions of men possessing only a very limited 
and imperfect knowledge of moral things, it is 
only a few of the grosser crimes which are 
punished after death. In proportion as their 
ideas on moral subjects become enlarged and 
perfected, the number of offences which they re- 
gard as liable to punishment is increased, and 
they come at length to the just result that every 
sin must be punished. Vide s. 150, II. 2. And 
so, according to the express doctrine of the New 
Testament, all irreligiousness (an ungodly dis- 
position, forgetfulness of God, agsfisia), every 
transgression of the divine precepts, all kinds 
of vice and moral corruption, will be inevitably 
punished in the future world ; and this punish- 
ment will be inflicted not only upon those who, 
like Jews and Christians, have the express 
written law of God, but also upon the heathen, 
who have merely the law of nature. Vide Rom. 
ii. 6—16; Gal. iv. 8; Matt. xxv. 41, seq.; 1 
Cor. vi. 9 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1—3. 

Especially is aTticstia or artsfeeia represented 
as a cause of condemnation. So Mark, xvi. 16, 
'he that believeth not is condemned." John, 
ill, 18, and ver. 36, 6 drtft^kov via ovx o^stai 
^Cd^v, &K%' rj opyr] ®tov fisvst trC avtov. By this 
unbelief is meant, the deliberate rejection of the 
doctrine of Christ, and disobedience to his pre- 
cepts, against one's better conviction. It in- 
cludes also apostasy from the Christian doctrine 
when it has been once received and acknowledged 
as true; Hebrews, x. 26, 39. Everything there- 
fore which draws after it punishment in the fu- 
ture world may be comprehended under artitrtCa 
and avofila — a criminal disbelief andl transgres- 
sion of the divine precepts. Whoever, then, is 



artiatos or avo/xoi, will be unhappy hereafter, 
however different the degrees of unhappiness 
may be. On the contrary, 7tl<rtL$ and lwouo$ 
]3toj (faw^fta) will be followed by blessedness, 
however great the difference in degree may be. 
It will be understood, of course, that among the 
unbelieving who will be punished those are not 
included who have no opportunity to become 
acquainted with the divine will or with the 
Christian doctrine, or who are naturally incapa- 
citated for this; in short, those who do not be- 
lieve without any fault of their own — e. g., 
children and many of the heathen. Vide s. 121. 

Note. — As to the number of those who will be 
saved and lost, the Bible says nothing definitely. 
When, on a certain occasion, the question was 
proposed to Christ, Whether the numbtr of the 
saved would be small? he gave an answer, ac- 
cording to Luke, xiii. 23, seq., of the following 
import: — "Ask not such questions from an idle 
curiosity, but act as if thou wert alone among 
many thousands." There are, indeed, many 
who will be saved, (cf. ver. 28, 29, and Rev. 
vii. 9,) but among them there will be many 
whose lot it was supposed would be different; 
and not all of those who account themselves the 
heirs of salvation, and are so esteemed by others, 
will be found in this number, ver. 29, 30. It 
is often distinctly affirmed by Christ, that among 
those who profess his name there are many 
who will not obtain eternal life, although he de- 
sires to lead all to salvation. E. g., Matt. xx. 16 ; 
xxii. 14, " many are called, but few are chosen" 
— i. e., many who hear me suffer themselves 
to be instructed in my doctrine, and become ex- 
ternally professors of my religion (xhytol) ; but 
few, however, belong to the number of the 
chosen saints, the elect, those who are well- 
pleasing in the sight of God, who do that which 
is commanded them, who are what they should 
be. It is the same as to Matt. vii. 13, 14, where 
Christ shews that the way in which many 
teachers lead the people is not the right way for 
attaining salvation — i. e., their instruction is not 
true and salutary, although followed by the ma- 
jority of men {latavid); the right and sure way 
which he points out meets with less approbation 
(it is narrow and forsaken, trodden by few), be- 
cause it is more difficult and requires many sa- 
crifices. For there were at that time but few 
who believed on him, and kept his command- 
ments with-the whole heart. 

(3) As there are future punishments, they 
must be different in degree. Vide Morus, p. 298, 
s. 9. This might be concluded a priori, and 
might be reasonably expected from the justice 
of God; for there are different degrees in sin, 
and one is greater than another; (vide s. 81, 
II. ;) and hence punishments, both natural and 
positive, must be proportionately varied. Now 
this is the uniform doctrine of Jesus and the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 549 



apostles. The more knowledge of the divine 
will a man has, the more opportunity and in- 
ducement to avoid sin, the greater the incentives 
to faith and virtue which are held up before him, 
by so much is his responsibility increased, and 
the greater will be his punishment if he does not 
make a faithful use of his advantages. "The 
servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it 
not, deserves to be beaten with many stripes." 
" To whom much is given, of him will much be 
required." Matt. x. 15; xxiii. 15; Luke, xii. 
46. Hence Paul says that the heathen who act 
against the law of nature will be punished ; but 
that the Jews will be punished more than they, 
because they had more knowledge, and more was 
given to them. 

But we can go no further than this general 
lule, that this difference of degree will be ap- 
portioned xarta yvuitiw, ritGtov, and f'pya. For 
God alone is able rightly to appoint punish- 
ments, and to fix their degree, since he alone is 
able by his omniscience to determine infallibly 
the degree of sin and its ill desert. It may 
therefore be, that many whom we regard as ut- 
terly damnable may not in God's judgment de- 
serve damnation, or not that degree of it which 
we award them. Others, on the contrary, to 
whom we might adjudge reward, may appear 
in the eyes of God to deserve severe punish- 
ment. 

SECTION CLVII. 

DURATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS ; REASONS 
FOR AND AGAINST THEIR ETERNAL DURATION. 

Reasons in favour of the Eternal Duration of Fu- 
ture Punishments, and what is, or may be, ob- 
jected against these Reasons. 

(1) From the holy scriptures. In the New 
Testament, the punishments of hell are ex- 
pressly described as eternal. In Matt. xxv. 41, 
46, we find 7tvp aLu>vwv and x6%a6i$ aiu>vio$ op- 
posed to £co'/7 aitoviof in both of these sentences, 
therefore, must alu>vcos be taken in the same 
sense, per legem disjunctions. And so, if in 
connexion with £co^, i* means unending, eternal, 
it must mean the same in connexion with 7tvp. 
In accordance with this must other texts be ex- 
plained ; as where it is said respecting the fallen 
angels, that they are bound in 8sduol cUSkk, 
Jude, ver. 6, coll. 2 Pet. ii. 4; Rev. xiv. 11 ; 
o^£^poj«at<avtoj, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; Mark, ix. 44, 46 ; 
Rev. xx. 10. So in John, iii. 36, where it is 
said respecting unbelievers, [level yj bpyr\ ®sov — 
ovx o^STfac £taqy. In Matt. xxvi. 24, Christ 
says respecting Judas, " that it would have 
been better for him never to have been born." 

With regard to these texts we shall here sub- 
join some observations. 



(a) On the texts in which aiwv and cuwi/toj 
are used. These are regarded by some as not 
decisive. For dSij? and alav are used to denote 
any long duration or period of time. Sometimes 
they refer to the past, and denote ages gone by, 
ancient days, antiquity ,• thus, rtv'kcu aiuwa, Ps. 
xxiv. 7, 9 ; stfrj cuovta, years of antiquity, Ps. 
Ixxvii. 5; zpovot aiavuu, Rom. xvi. 25; drf' 
aldovos, Acts, iii. 21. Sometimes they refer to 
future time, and are applied to everything 
which lasts long, although in time it may come 
to an end, or has come to it already. For the 
Hebrews and other ancient people have no one 
word for expressing the precise idea of eternity. 
Cf. s. 20, III., respecting the eternity of God. 
Thus Paul, 2 Cor. iv. 18, opposes aiaviov to 
rtpooxaipov. Thus Sca^xyj ouaytoj is used with 
reference to the Mosaic institute, although it 
came to an end,. Ex. xxxi. 16 ; the same as to 
Ispatsia atcLvtoj, Num. xxv. 13. 

From this, as some suppose, it follows, that 
xbhasis alavio$ may mean either the pain and 
condemnation ordained by God of old (as Christ 
says, with regard to the blessedness opposed to 
it, that it was 7tpoy]?oiuarsuivn, Matt. xxv. 34, 
41), or misery and happiness long continued, 
lasting for ages, without yet designating a dura- 
tion absolutely endless; or both of these senses 
may be comprehended under this expression. In 
the invisible world, everything is aiaviov and 
a'CSiov. There, according to the conceptions of 
all nations, time is not measured by years and 
short human periods, as it is here in the world, 
but by long periods, by ages. 

To this some add the remark, that rtvp and 
jcdxacrtj ouanoj properly denote the place, the 
kingdom, the residence of the lost — the state of 
condemnation; as patuteta &tov and £«?7 cucmoj 
denote the place, the abode of the blessed. 
This place, they say, may be eternal, because 
it will never be without occupants, or persons 
who endure punishment on account of sin. 
There will always be two different kingdoms, 
one of happiness, the other of misery, the dis- 
tinction between which will never be removed, 
and which can never be united. Bat from this 
it does not follow that every person who has 
once been there, or suffered punishment, will 
remain there for ever. 

(b) As to the phrase, their worm dieth not, 
&c, Mark, ix., this, it is said, occurs also in 
Is. lxvi. 24, with reference to the unhappy fate 
of the idolatrous Israelites, and is transferred 
here to the punishments of hell. Since, how- 
ever, in the former case it does not denote an 
absolute eternity of suffering, but only its 
dreadfulness and long continuance, so it is at 
least possible it may mean the same here. And 
as to the term fiivsi in John, iii., the idea of 
eternity is still less implied in this. As used 



550 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



by John, it may stand for slvcu, and denote only 
the certainty and inevitablenesss of future pu- 
nishments. 

(c) In the passage with regard to Judas, 
Matt, xxvi., the language employed, it is said, 
may be proverbial and popular, not admitting of 
a strict construction. It is as much as to say, 
" such an one makes himself extremely misera- 
ble; well would it be for him had he never 
been born !" 

But those texts in which there is a clear con- 
trast between ^cot} alavco^ and x6"kaai$ tuavtoj, 
cannot be so easily explained away as some 
suppose. And if any one considers them im- 
partially, and without attempting to prevent 
their obvious meaning, he will not fail to de- 
rive from them, as Morus justly observes, (p. 
300, ad finem,) "idea sempiternitatis, non autem 
longi temporis." For since ^co^ aiavvos in all 
the other discourses of Jesus is understood, 
without contradiction, to denote a blessed life 
lasting for ever, there is no reason for under- 
standing it differently here. And if £co^ cuc^coj 
here means eternal life, then,joer legem disjunc- 
tionis, must xohavis aiavvog denote eternal, un- 
ending punishment. And the other texts relat- 
ing to this subject must now be explained in 
accordance with these. 

(2) Other arguments a priori have been em- 
ployed in behalf of the eternity of future punish- 
ments. 

(a) The guilt {culpa, reatus') of sin, it is said, 
is infinite, and its punishment must therefore be 
the same. The injured majesty of the law- 
giver is infinite, and hence punishment for the 
injury must be infinite too. This argument 
was employed by many of the schoolmen — 
e. g., Thomas Aquinas, and has also been urged 
by Mosheim, and other modern theologians. 

Answer. — There is no infinitus reatus peccato- 
rum, nor can the object against which sin is 
committed be made in every case the measure 
of its criminality or ill desert; certainly this 
cannot be done with regard to God. Vide s. 
81, ad finem. 

(b) Every sin is followed, to all eternity, by 
injurious consequences to him who commits it; 
as every virtue or good action is followed by 
good consequences. The wicked, therefore, 
must be miserable to all eternity, and endure 
the punishment of their sins. 

Answer. — This is very true, as far as natural 
punishments, or the natural evil consequences 
of sin, are spoken of. And if these are meant 
when the eternity of future punishments is 
mentioned, then indeed must they be called 
eternal, since something will always be de- 
tracted from the happiness of the sinner for his 
having sinned, even if he repents, and all posi- 
*.ve punishments are removed from him or re- 



pealed, as it cannot be otherwise than that the 
natural consequences of sin should always re- 
main. Those who have sinned will always 
stand proportionably below others in point of 
happiness, as there are degrees both of blessed- 
ness and misery. 

Here, however, two things should be remark- 
ed — viz., first, all the consequences of our ac- 
tions cannot be imputed to us, and so all the 
evil consequences of our actions cannot be re- 
garded as punishment, especially in case it was 
impossible for us to foresee these consequences, 
or when we sinned unintentionally. Secondly. 
Divine Providence has wisely ordered it, that 
good and useful consequences shall often result 
even from the sins of men, and these conse- 
quences are equally unending — e. g., through 
the unbelief of the Jews the heathen are saved, 
according to Paul, Rom. xi. This now should 
be taken into consideration, in mitigation of the 
guilt and punishableness of many sins. 

(c) Another argument in behalf of the eter- 
nity of future punishments is drawn from the 
scientia media Dei. Vide s. 22, 1. With regard 
to some men, God foresaw that if they conti- 
nued here upon the earth they would sin With- 
out cessation. Since now these persons are 
such, as to their whole constitution and dispo- 
sition, that they would go on for ever to sin, 
they are justly punished for ever. This argu- 
ment was employed by Fulgentius and Gregory 
the great; and it has been again used of late by 
Drexel, Baumgarten, Troschel, and others. 

Answer. — It cannot be reconciled with our 
ideas of justice that sins which were never ac- 
tually committed should be punished as if they 
had been committed. If a human ruler should 
punish an individual for crimes of which he was 
never actually guilty, but which he knew with 
certainty he would perpetrate if he had means, 
time, and opportunity, it would doubtless be 
pronounced unjust and tyrannical. The fact, 
too, is very questionable, whether there are any 
men who would go to sin without interruption, 
in every possible situation and under all cir- 
cumstances in which they might be placed in 
this world. Nothing like this is taught us in 
the Christian doctrine. According to this, God 
punishes only ta apya, or a IVtpaftv exaGto$. 
Rom. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 10. 

(c?) The eternity of the punishments of hell 
is inferred by others from the bias to sin, which 
will continually acquire strength in those who 
are lost, and finally make repentance impossible. 
It is often seen, even here upon the earth, how 
deeply this propensity to sin takes root when it 
is long indulged, and how difficult, and indeed 
impossible, repentance becomes. Besides, the 
use of the means of grace is confined to the pre- 
sent life. Hereafter there will be no preaching 



STATE INTO WHICH MAX IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 551 



cf the word of God, and no sacraments, and the 
grace of God will no longer be there given to 
bring men to repentance. 

Answer. — In these statements there is much 
which is vague and incapable of proof. 

First. The state of things in the future world 
is very different fr'An the state here. The rea- 
son why the bias to sin takes such deep root, 
and why reformation is so difficult in the pre- 
sent world, often lies in the external circum- 
stances by which man is surrounded, and which 
make an irresistible impression upon his senses. 
As soon as these objects can be removed, or the 
impression which they make upon the senses 
can be weakened, it is seen that reformation 
becomes more easy. But now in the future 
world the spirits of lost men will no longer be 
surrounded by these external objects, which 
prove so exciting to the senses; so that, even 
if the impression before made upon them by 
these objects should for awhile remain, they 
must still, from the very nature of the human 
soul, become weaker and weaker in the absence 
of these excitements. It would seem, there- 
fore, that sometimes, at least, the propensity to 
sin must gradually decrease in the future world, 
especially when we consider that those who are 
lost, being no longer deceived by external and 
sensible objects, and being no longer withdrawn 
from reflection as when upon the earth, will 
now see and deeply feel the evil consequences 
of sin. 

Secondly. From hence we may conclude, if 
the use of reason is not wholly denied to the 
damned, and if their moral nature is not wholly 
destroyed, that it is not improbable that even in 
hell they may possibly conceive an abhorrence of 
sin, and renounce their love for it, although the 
word of God is not there preached, nor the sacra- 
ments there administered. Morus, p. 301. The 
knowledge which they will carry with them 
from this life into the next cannot be entirely 
obliterated ; nor can it be supposed that God 
will compel them to sin, or so entirely withhold 
from them his grace that they will not be able 
to come to the knowledge of their sins, and to 
renounce the prejudice and wickedness cherish- 
ed during the present life. For God to do this 
would be to punish sin with sin, and to be him- 
self the author of new offences. It may be 
asked, then, whether the end of the divine pu- 
nishments, to promote the actual reformation of 
those upon whom they are inflicted, may not be 
attained even in the case of those who will 
hereafter be condemned % 

Thirdly. But should any one say that these 
punishments will be so severe, and will cause 
so great pain, that they will rather drive those 
upon whom they are inflicted to despair, dis- 
traction, or fury, than promote their repentance, 
he does not consider that such a statement can 



I hardly be reconciled with our ideas of the jus- 
tice and goodness of God. These ideas do not 
permit us to suppose that he will punish any 
i one as an offender from whom he himself has 
1 withdrawn all opportunity for repentance and 
all freedom of action. He only can be rightly 
punished who enjoyed freedom, but would not 
employ the means and opportunities for reform- 
ation which were offered him. 

II. Arguments for the Finiteness of Future Punish- 
ments, and Objections to these Arguments. 

Besides what is commonly said to invalidate 
the prevailing opinion of the eternity of future 
punishments, the following arguments are often 
employed to support the opinion that they are 
finite in duration. These arguments are of very 
unequal weight. 

(1) Arguments from the Sew Testament. 

(a) The advocates of this opinion appeal to the 
declaration of Peter, Acts, iii. 21, where zpovoo 
arcoxataz-dGBios rtdvruv are spoken of, which 
God had before promised by the prophets. This 
is understood by many to denote the future re- 
covery of lost spirits and men to a happy condi- 
tion, which is on this account called restoration. 

(b) The finiteness of future punishments is in- 
ferred by others from the efficacy and univer- 
sality of the merits of Christ. There is no rea- 
son, they say, to limit the salutary consequences 
of his work merely to the present life. It will 
continue to be efficacious in the future world if 
man is only willing to reform. Such is the 
reasoning of many, and they refer to 1 Cor. xv. 
22 — 28; where ^avcWos denotes misery and the 
punishment of sin; and also other texts. 

Answer. — From the New Testament, how- 
ever, no clear argument can be derived in be- 
half of the finite duration of future punish- 
ments ; for, 

(r/) The passage in 1 Cor. xv. treats at death 
in the literal sense, since hdvarcc is there op- 
posed to the resurrection of the dead, and it is 
there expressly said that Christ, in raising the 
dead to life, will conquer this last enemy of the 
human race. Cf. s. 98, ad fin. This is therefore 
described as his last great work for the good of 
the human race. And so, judging froui this pas- 
sage, one could expect no influence of Christ, 
or of his work for the good of men, beyond the 
grave. 

(b) That the passage referred to in Acts iii. 
does not relate to this point is beyond all ques- 
tion. Vide Ernesti's Programm on this text, 
in his " Opusc. Theol.," p. 477. seq. Cf. s. 97, 
ad finem. The meaning of this passage is as 
follows: — "The heavens have received Christ, 
or retain him within themselves, as lung m 
(a;xpcs ov) the happy period if the New Testament 
■ continues." He will n-~>t come acrain to found 
; an earthly kingdom. In ver. 20, these Xr OVOi 



552 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



a.7to%a/z , atfT , actec<>$ jiavtizv are called xarpol avo^v- 
|fcoj djto Kvplov, and in Heb. ix. 10, ^atpoj 5u>p^-w- 
(j£W5. Thus it is said in Matt. xvii. 11, 'Hto; 
(i. e., John) attoxataoTfrjcfsi rtavto,, where the 
phrase is taken from the Sept. Version of Mai. 
iv. 6. Tldvta refers to everything- which needs 
reformation in religious affairs, and to every- 
thing which is predicted by the prophets. Cf. 
Morus, p. 301. 

(c) Nor is there in the discourses of Jesus a 
single passage which encourages the hope that 
there will be a termination of future punish- 
ments. Cf., e. g., Luke, xvi. 

(2) Arguments from reason for the finite dura- 
tion of future punishments. The principal of 
these are drawn from our ideas of the divine'at- 
tributes, the goodness, wisdom, and justice of 
God. How can it be reconciled with these at- 
tributes, it is asked, that God should make so 
large a number of his rational creatures for ever 
miserable ? How can God, who is love itself, 
punish his creatures eternally because they have 
lived nfew years only in a thoughtless, wicked, 
and irrational manner? This seems to be 
wholly disproportionate. Again it is asked, 
how could God create beings whose eternal 
misery he foresaw 1 

To these questions it may be replied, 

(a) That although the views expressed in 
them are in general true, yet our limited under- 
standing is unable to determine, in particular 
cases, what is to be expected from the divine 
goodness, wisdom, and justice, and what is ac- 
cordant with these attributes, and what other- 
wise. And so, although it may appear to us to 
be agreeable to the goodness and the other attri- 
butes of God to put a period to the punishments 
of hell, still it does not follow that he must ne- 
cessarily, or will actually do this. Did we not 
see it to be a fact, that God has created a world 
m which there is so much physical and moral 
evil, we should proceed to argue, on this prin- 
ciple, that it would be inconsistent with his 
perfections to give such a world existence, and 
should think that we had reasoned conclusively. 

(&) Again; in reply to the above questions it 
may be said, that God does not look merely at 
single individuals, but has respect to the whole 
of his creation, and that he must prefer the wel- 
fare of the whole to that of a few. The offender 
himself may not always be benefited by the di- 
vine punishments visited upon him, but his ex- 
ample may yet serve for the warning of others, 
and thus conduce to their good. Cf. Rom. ix. 
17, 22. Thus the eternal punishments inflicted 
upon some may perhaps serve, through all eter- 
nity, to deter from sins many other beings in the 
boundless empire of God — good angels, and 
men redeemed, and perhaps still other classes 
of beings not belonging to this world. By 
this punishment, therefore, a good may be done 



for many which will overbalance the evil in- 
flicted on a few. The subject is exhibited by 
Michaelis in this light in his work, "Von der 
Sunde, 1 ' s. 325, seq. Plato, in his Gorgias, 
near the end, ascribes a similar thought to So- 
crates; "he believed that the irreclaimable part 
of mankind would be eternally punished, as 
Ttapadsiy/AOrfa, i'va oXkoi opwvz'aj, tyofiovfisvoi j3f7.- 
tlovc, ysvavtai," There is much probability in 
this thought. The force of it, however, some 
endeavour to invalidate, by saying that it is 
conceiving of God too narrowly, and too much 
after the manner of men. God cannot be want- 
ing in other means by which this object could 
be more easily and surely attained. Again ; it is 
very much to be doubted whether the example of 
persons condemned to eternal punishment would 
have such a powerful effect upon all, and ac- 
tually deter them from sin. This effect is not 
certainly produced upon many here in this 
world, who believe most confidently in the 
eternity of future punishments. Moreover, it 
is an imperfection belonging to human legisla- 
tors and rulers, and not therefore to be trans- 
ferred to the supreme legislator, that the pu- 
nishments inflicted by them often serve merely 
for the warning of others, and cannot secure the 
reformation of those who are punished. Vide 
s. 31, No. 2, respecting the positive justice of 
God. 

SECTION CLVIII. 

RESULT DRAWN FROM COMPARING AND EXAMIN- 
ING THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS FOR ANP 
AGAINST THE ETERNAL DURATION OF FUTURE 
punishment; AND A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY 
OF THIS DOCTRINE. 

I. Result of the Reasons for and against this 
Doctrine. 

(1) There is not a single text in the New 
Testament, either in the discourses of Christ or 
in the writings of the apostles, which clearly 
authorizes the hope of an entire and universal 
removal of all future punishments ; but exactly 
the opposite of this sentiment is expressly af- 
firmed in many passages. Vide s. 157, I. 1, 
and II. 1. 

(2) The following remarks, drawn partly 
from scripture and partly from reason, may 
serve to illustrate and confirm what we are 
taught in the Bible respecting the duration of 
punishment in the future world. There are 
two kinds of punishment which the wicked will 
be made to suffer — viz., 

(a) Natural punishment. As every action 
morally good is followed by endless good con- 
sequences to him who performs it, so it is with 
every wrong action. This is founded in the 
wise constitution of things which God himself 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 553 



has established. When, therefore, natural pu- 
nishments are spoken of, it is obvious to reason 
how an eternal duration of them may be affirm- 
ed. Indeed, reason cannot conceive it to be 
otherwise, since there is no promise of God, 
either in the holy scriptures or elsewhere, that 
the natural evil consequences of sins once com- 
mitted will ever cease. In order to this there 
must be some incomprehensible miracle per- 
formed, and this God has not promised to do. 
Hence, as far as natural punishments are con- 
cerned, their eternal duration may be affirmed, 
both on grounds of scripture and reason. Cf. 
s. 157, I. 2. 

(b) Positive punishments. With regard to these 
we may conceive that they may be removed ; 
indeed, much can be said, on grounds of reason, 
to render this opinion probable. To hope that God 
would-remove the positive punishments of sins, 
in case the sinner, even in the future life, should 
come to the knowledge of himself, and truly 
repent, would seem to be agreeable to the divine 
goodness and justice. That the repentance of 
the sinner in the future world is absolutely im- 
possible is not taught in the scriptures. Vide 
s. 157, 1, 2, coll. s. 63, II. Note, respecting the 
fallen angels. And that even these miserable 
beings are by no means wholly excluded from 
the active proofs of the goodness and justice of 
God is evident from the fact that the Bible ex- 
pressly teaches that the lot of some of the 
damned will be more light and tolerable than that 
of others. Vide Matt. xi. 22, 24 ; x. 15 ; Luke, 
xii. 48. The phrase x6%aai$ cuwmoj may per- 
haps relate therefore merely to the natural pu- 
nishments of sin, and not to the positive. Still 
it cannot be shewn that this phrase does and 
must refer exclusively to these natural punish- 
ments, and it is still possible that both these 
kinds of punishment may be comprehended in 
its meaning. In short, no arguments which are 
merely philosophical furnish anything more than 
a certain degree of probability on this subject; 
they cannot enable us to decide anything defi- 
nitely with regard to it. We know too little 
what the positive punishments of the future 
world will be, to speak decidedly with regard 
to them. Where the object is unknown to us, 
we cannot pronounce decidedly that the predi- 
cate of eternal duration may not be applied to 
them. But allowing that positive punishments 
may be wholly removed from one who may 
have actually repented, still the natural evil 
consequences of sin will not therefore, of neces- 
sity, come to an end. These may, indeed, be- 
come more light and tolerable to one who has 
repented, but even such an one can never be 
happy in the same degree as another who has 
never sinned. Such an one will always stand 
on a lower point of happiness than others, and 
70 



there will always be a great gulf fixed between 
him and them. 

(3) The wisdom which Christ and his apos- 
tles always shewed in exhibiting this doctrine 
should be imitated by all Christian teachers. 
In our practical instructions we should never 
indulge in speculations, or suffer ourselves to 
enter upon the investigation of learned questions 
which the unpractised cannot understand, and 
will but too easily misconstrue and pervert. 
Even the distinction between natural and posi- 
tive punishments cannot be made perfectly plain 
to the unlearned ; and hence it is never insisted 
upon in the sacred scriptures; and that positive 
punishments will ever wholly cease in the fu- 
ture world can be shewn incontrovertibly nei- 
ther from the Bible nor any other source. It is 
moreover impossible to prevent the doctrine of 
the finite duration of future punishments, let it 
be stated ever so guardedly, from being pervert- 
ed in various ways by the great mass of man- 
kind, to their own injury. 

Let the teacher, therefore, adhere to the sim- 
ple doctrine of the Bible; the more so, consi- 
dering how little we know of the future world, 
and how liable we are, through our ignorance, 
to mistake. Had more full disclosures on this 
subject been necessary or useful for us in the 
present life, they would have been given to us 
by God either through nature, or direct revela- 
tion, or in both these ways. But since he has 
not seen fit to do this, let the Christian teacher 
exhibit faithfully and conscientiously that only 
which Christ and the apostles taught on this 
subject, without either adding anything to their 
testimony, or diminishing aught from it. 

Note — Some modern writers, who admit that 
eternal punishments are threatened in the Bible, 
but who are unable to reconcile this doctrine 
with their preconceived philosophical or theo- 
logical principles, have hit upon the thought 
that God has merely threatened these eternal 
punishments, in order to deter men more effec- 
tually from sin, and to sustain more firmly the 
authority of his law; but that it depends upon 
himself to what degree he will fulfil his threat- 
enings. In executing the sentence, he can and 
will, it is said, abate something from the seve- 
rity of the punishment threatened. So thought 
Tillotson, in his Sermon on the Pains of Hell. 
And this view has appeared not improbable to 
many German theologians — e. g., Bushing, 
Bahrdt, (in his "Dogmatik,") Less, and others. 

But such a supposition is unworthy of God. 
Human legislators do, indeed, in consequence 
of their weakness, sometimes resort to such ex- 
pedients, in order to sustain the authority of 
their laws. Still such measures, even among 
men, are generally followed by injurious conse- 
quences, and are rarely adopted except by weak 
3 A 



554 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



princes. But with regard to God, who is faith- 
ful and true, such a supposition is incongruous. 
Nor does he need any such expedients, since he 
cannot want for means to effect this object, 
without going contrary to his veracity. Be- 
sides, the whole strength and efficacy of all the 
threatenings connected with the divine laws 
would by this supposition be diminished. For 
men are always inclined enough to believe that 
they shall not, after all these threatenings, be 
dealt with so strictly and severely, because they 
have been accustomed to see some abatement 
of the penalty annexed to human laws, when it 
comes to be inflicted. But against so hurtful a 
mistake the holy scriptures labour with the 
greatest earnestness, and everywhere insist 
upon the doctrine of the divine veracity, and 
the unfailing fulfilment of the divine threaten- 
ings; e. g., Heb. iv. 12, 13. 

II. Sketch of the History of this Doctrine among 
Christians. 
Cf. Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resur- 
gentium; also, J. A. Dietelmair, Hist. Anti- 
quior Commenti Fanatici de artoxa-tacrtufccdois 
Ttavtw, Altorf, 17G9, 8vo; and Cotta, Historia 
succincta Dogmatis de Pcenarum Infernalium 
Duratione; Tubing. 1774. 

(1) We are not to expect any deeply-learned 
and philosophical investigations and distinc- 
tions, with regard to this subject, from the sim- 
plicity of the earliest Christian period. The 
teachers were then contented with the simple 
doctrine of the apostles which has been already 
exhibited, and they made use of this with the 
most happy success in their didactic and horta- 
tory discourses. Afterwards, since the second 
century, when they began to mingle the philo- 
sophy of the schools with Christianity, they fell 
into speculation upon this doctrine. Some un- 
dertook to define the idea of al^vioc, more accu- 
rately, and to shew that it does not necessarily 
imply punishments which are strictly unending. 
Others insisted upon the literal meaning of this 
term, and would have it taken in its strictest 
sense. Thus two parties were formed. These 
might perhaps have found some points of union, 
or at least of approximation, if they had properly 
considered the distinction between natural and 
positive punishments. But no traces of this 
distinction can be found in most of the ancients ; 
certainly they did not see it, and all the conse- 
quences which can be derived from it, with suf- 
ficient distinctness. 

(2) The doctrine that the pains of hell are 
finite in duration was first clearly taught by 
some of the Christian teachers of the Alexan- 
drine school in the second century. They ob- 
viously derived their mode of representation 
from the principles of the Platonic philosophy. 
Plato regarded punishments merely as medi- 



cinal, designed to effect the cure of the disor-'f-rH 
of men. He supposed that all spirits and souls 
not wholly irreclaimable would be morally pu- 
rified and renovated by means of punishments, 
and would in this way attain to happiness; 
which, however, would be very different as to 
its degree. But still he, as well as Socrates, 
believed in the unending punishment of the irre- 
claimable. Cf. s. 150. 

Even in Clement of Alexandria we find a 
clear exhibition of these Platonic ideas. Cf. 
Strom. 4 and 6. But Origen, in the third cen- 
tury, taught still more plainly, aTioxa-taGtaaw 
ba^^oviutv xal dojjSujv di^-ptortcov, and 7tpoffxai— 
pov Uvav xb'kaGiv d<jfj3tji> disport to v, and endea- 
voured to establish this doctrine by many argu- 
ments. In the works of his w r hich are still 
extant, there are passages which are clearly of 
this import — e. g., in his works, " Contra CeL- 
sum," v. 15; " De Principiis," ii. 5. Homil. 
19, in Jerem., and Athanasius and other ancient 
writers, are agreed that he taught this doctrine. 
Some modern writers have undertaken to dis- 
pute this, though without sufficient reason.* 
Origen was followed in this doctrine by many 
of the learned Grecian fathers — e. g., Diodcrus 
of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others 
of the school of Origen. Even in the Latin 
church this opinion was widely disseminated 
in the fourth century, as we learn from Augus- 
tine and Hieronymus. 

But in opposition to these, the doctrine of the 
eternity of future punishments was affirmed by 
other equally distinguished teachers — e. g., 
Gregory of Nazianzum, Basilius, John of Con- 
stantinople, and among the Latins, by Hiero- 
nymus, Augustine, and others. Even in the 
fourth century Origen and his adherents were 
severely reproached on account of this and other 
doctrines which had been already freely circu- 
lated. At length the ecclesiastical anathema 
was pronounced upon this doctrine. Among 
the opponents of the school of Origen and of 
their doctrine on this subject, Theophilns of 
Alexandria, in the fourth and fifth centuries, 
was especially distinguished. The doctrine of 
Origen was therefore condemned by the fourth 
council at Carthage, in the year 393, and after- 
wards by many other councils, and in opposi- 
tion to it the doctrine of the eternity of future 
punishment was established as the faith of the 
church. 

(3) Still the doctrine of the limited duration 
of future punishment has never wanted defend- 
ers. Even during the dark ages and among the 



* [Neander, while he concedes that Origen taught 
this doctrine, thinks it is one of those points respect- 
ing which his opinion afterwards changed. Cf. Ne- 
ander, Allg. Kirch. Gesch. b. i. Abth. hi. s. 1098. — 
Tk.J 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 6'55 



schoolmen there were some who took this 
ground, especially Scotus Erigena in the ninth 
century, and the Abbot Raynaldus in the 
twelfth. But the great majority of teachers 
during this period held fast to the opposite opi- 
nion, and endeavoured to confirm it by new ar- 
guments ; so, e. g., Thomas Aquinas and others. 

But this doctrine of the limited duration of 
future punishment fell into very ill repute in the 
Western church, on account of its being pro- 
fessed by some of the enthusiastic and revolu- 
tionary parties in the sixteenth century, (e. g., 
by the Anabaptists,) and from its being inti- 
mately connected with their expectations and 
schemes. The mere profession of the doctrine 
came to be regarded as implying assent to the 
other extravagances of these parties, and as the 
signal for rebellion. Hence it is rejected in the 
symbolical books of the Lutheran church as an 
Anabaptistical doctrine; Augs. Confess. Art. 
xvii. In the form in which this doctrine was 
held by these sects it deserves the most unmin- 
gled disapprobation. Again; among the ill- 
famed Christian free-thinkers — e. g., the Soci- 
nians — there were some who professed it. In 
modern times it has been the same. This doc- 
trine has been advocated in the protestant church 
both by men who have stood in suspicion of 
enthusiasm, (e. g., Peterson, Lavater, and 
others,) and by some of the free-thinkers in 
philosophy and theology, although for very dif- 
ferent causes, and on very different grounds, by 
these two classes. 

The principal advocates of the common opi- 
nion on this subject, in modern times, are, 
Mosheim, in the Appendix to his Sermons; and 
among the philosophers, Leibnitz, Baumgarten 
in his Dogmatik and Vindicise Pcenarum iEter- 
narum; Halle, 1742: Schubert, Verniinftige 
Gedanken von der Endlichkeit der Hollenstra- 
fen, 3te Aufg. Jena, 1750; Heinr. Meine, Gute 
Sache der Lehre von der unendlichen Dauer 
der Hollenstrafen ; Helmstadt, 1748 ; Schlitte, 
Ueberlegung der beiderseitiger Griinde fur und 
wider die unendliche Ungliickseligkeit der 
Verbrecher, &c. Cf. also Michaelis, Von der 
Siinde, &c. 

The principal advocates of the doctrine of the 
limited duration of future punishments are, 
Soner, (in an acute philosophical work, to 
which Leibnitz replied ; vide Lessing's Bey- 
trage zur Geschichte und Literatur, Ir Beytr., 
Braunschweig, 1773, s. 201 ;) Eberhard, Apo- 
logie des Sokrates, th. i. and ii. ; Gruner, Theol. 
Dogm. p. 636; Basedow, Philalethie, s. 539; 
Steinbart, System, u. s. w. A work entitled 
Ueber die Strafe der Verdammten und deren 
Dauer; Leipzig, 1782; is composed with much 
reflection. The arguments on both sides are 
examined, and a middle course between them 
is chosen. Some have supposed that the wicked, 



after enduring the punishments of hell for a 
season, will be at last annihilated, and have 
called this mortem setemam. Vide s. 151, ad 
finem. But according to scriptural usage, £a- 
vato^ or oXf^-po? atQftoj, or Ssviepos, is not anni- 
hilation, but eternal condemnation. 



ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS. 



SECTION CLIX. 

INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCTRINE ; AND EXPLANA- 
TION OF THE SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY WITH 
REGARD TO IT. 

I. Grounds for expecting a happier life hereafter. 

That a more happy life is to be expected after 
death appears, even on grounds of reason, in a 
high degree probable, if either the present state 
of human life is considered, or the attributes of 
God, his goodness, justice, and wisdom. Cf. 
the arguments in behalf of the immortality of 
the soul, s. 149. Man and his destination are 
the most insolvable riddle, if he has received 
existence merely for the present life. And this 
riddle can be explained only on the supposition 
that the period of man's existence extends be- 
yond the grave, and that there will properly 
begin the happy state where the pious will reap 
the fruits of what they have sown. 

The destination of man, as a moral being, is, 
holiness and proportionate happiness. As to 
holiness or moral perfection, it is and remains 
extremely defective during the present life; and 
even those who make the greatest advances in 
moral excellence still fall very far short of that 
high standard which is set up before them and 
which their own inmost feeling tells them they 
ought to attain. And as to happiness, it must 
be confessed that no one in the present life is 
perfectly happy, either as to body or soul, al- 
though there is implanted in all by the Creator 
a disposition to seek for happiness, and an in- 
extinguishable thirst to enjoy it. But how 
scanty and miserable is the satisfaction of this 
desire in the present life, even with those who 
in the judgment of others are enviably happy! 
Beautifully and faithfully is this described in 
Ecclesiastes — a book which contains the true 
philosophy of life. 

It is true, indeed, that agreeable sensations, 
both bodily and spiritual, are enhanced in their 
value and charm by being connected with un- 
pleasant sensations, if the unpleasant only go 
before, and the pleasant follow after. Thus to 
the convalescent, man, after he has endured 
great sufferings in his sickness, the mere cessa- 
tion of pain is an exquisite delight, while to 
those who have felt none of these sufferings it 



55G 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



is no source of pleasure. But an order exactly 
the reverse is common in the life of men here 
upon the earth. The most cheerful time is that 
of youth ; then we have the full power and 
bloom of life. The older we grow, the more 
we become entangled in business, burdened 
with cares, oppressed with griefs and distresses, 
infirmities of body and mind, perhaps with po- 
verty and disgrace. How sad were the lot of 
man if he had no future and happier life to 
expect ! 

How many men are born with intellectual 
faculties and powers which they can never fully 
develop here, either because they die early or 
are wholly destitute of the means and opportu- 
nities for development and cultivation. Now if 
existence ceases with death, this sum of powers 
is wholly lost. But since our Creator does not 
give us even our bodily powers in vain and for 
no end, how much less can he have imparted 
the higher intellectual and especially moral fa- 
culties without design ! 

It is no wonder, therefore, that the expecta- 
tion of a more happy state after the present life 
has, as it were, forced itself so universally 
upon reflecting men. But equally universal and 
equally well grounded is the hope of an unend- 
ing continuance of this future happy state. For 
if it is not to continue for ever it ceases to be a 
truly happy condition. To foresee the end of a 
state of bliss would be of itself enough to dis- 
turb the happiness which we might for a time 
possess, and to embitter its enjoyment; and 
when it should actually come to an end, it would 
leave us far more miserable than we were before 
we had experience of this blessedness. For one 
who is born and brought up poor and in a state 
of servitude will not feel his situation to be so 
miserable and oppressive as a rich or great man, 
who is cast down from his elevation and brought 
into the same condition, will find it to be. 

Great and inestimable, therefore, is the merit 
of Jesus Christ in giving to this doctrine of an 
eternal blessedness beyond the grave that firm- 
ness and certainty which it cannot receive from 
arguments of reason, by which it can be rendered 
only probable; and also in referring everything, 
as he does, to this future life. Vide John, xx. 
28; 1 John, ii. 25; Rom. ii. 7, and s. 148. Ex- 
cept for Christ we should have no satisfying 
certainty to lift us above all doubt. But now 
this doctrine is placed in the most intimate con- 
nexion with the history of his person, since he 
always represents himself as the one through 
whom we attain to the possession of this eter- 
nal happiness, and in whose society we shall 
enjoy it. Cf. the sections above cited, also s. 
120, II. 

II. Nature and Names of Future Blessedness. 
On this subject we have no very clear and de- 



finite knowledge, nor can we have in the present 
life. Men, indeed, usually conceive the joys of 
heaven to be the same as, or at least to resemble, 
the pleasures of this world ; and each one hopes 
to obtain with certainty, and to enjoy in full mea- 
sure, beyond the grave, that good which he holds 
most dear upon earth — those favourite employ- 
ments of particular delights which he ardently 
longs for here, but which he can seldom or never 
enjoy in this world, or in the enjoyment of which 
he has never been fully satisfied. Hence rude 
men, living only in the indulgence of their pas- 
sions and appetites, have always expected to find 
in heaven the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensual 
delights of every kind. The indolent man, or 
one who is exhausted by severe labour, regards 
rest and freedom from employment as the high- 
est good, and places the chief blessedness of 
heaven in this. But one who reflects soberly 
on this subject will easily see that the happi- 
ness of heaven must be a very different thing 
from earthly happiness. This last is of such 
a nature as to be soon followed by disgust and 
satiety. We should be very unhappy, if we 
should live for ever in the richest profusion of 
the highest earthly delights and joys, even 
could we continue in perpetual and never-fading 
youth. For all earthly joys and delights of 
which we know anything by experience, are of 
such a nature that after they have been enjoyed 
for a short time they lose their relish, and then 
follows satiety. Experience daily confirms the 
truth of what is said by the preacher, that every- 
thing upon earth is vanity and vexation of spirit. 
If it were appointed to us in our present condi- 
tion to live for ever upon the earth, in the full 
enjoyment of all it can afford to please and 
charm, our lot were indeed pitiable. Had we 
tasted all possible earthly pleasures, and were 
there none now left which could attract us by 
their novelty, satiated with a joyless life we 
should wish ourselves dead, and even this 
wish, to our sorrow, would remain unsatisfied ; 
even that rest, or rather indolence and torpidity, 
which is so highly praised and so ardently 
longed for by some drones, would, long conti- 
nued, render us perfectly miserable, and at 
length become wholly intolerable. 

Cicero very justly remarks, that the blessed 
gods, according to the notion which the Epicu- 
reans entertained of them, could not possibly be 
happy, being without employment, and having 
nothing to think of, through all eternity, except 
belle est mihi. Hence the bliss and joys of the 
future world must be of an entirely different 
kind from what is called earthly joy and happi- 
ness, if we are there to be truly happy for ever. 

But since we have no distinct conceptions of 
those joys which never have been and never will 
be experienced by us here in their full extent, 
we have of course no words in our language to 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 55^ 



express them, and connot therefore expect any 
clear description of them, even in the holy scrip- 
tures. Cf. Morus, p. 298, s. 7, ad finem, and 
p. 299, note 1. Hence the Bible describes this 
happiness sometimes in general terms designat- 
ing its greatness, (as Romans, viii. 18 — 22; 2 
Cor. iv. 17, 18,) and sometimes by various beau- 
tiful images and figurative modes of speech, bor- 
rowed from everything which we know to be at- 
tractive and desirable. 

The greater part of these images were already 
common among the Jewish contemporaries of 
Christ, but Christ and his apostles employed 
them in a purer sense than the great multitude 
of the Jews. The Orientalists are rich in such 
figures. They were employed by Mohammed, 
who carried them, as his manner was, to an ex- 
travagant excess, but at the same time said ex- 
pressly that they were mere figures, although 
many of his followers afterwards understood 
them literally, as has been often done in a similar 
way by many Christians. If all which is figura- 
tive is taken away, the main idea which is left is 
that of great felicity, which, as it is expressly 
said, will transcend all our expectations and con- 
ceptions. Vide 1 John, iii. 2; Col. iii. 3, £u>rj 
qiAuv x£xpv7itai. The passage 1 Cor. ii. 9, eye 
hath not seen, ear hath not heard, &c, (which is 
taken from Isa. lxiv. 4,) does not properly relate 
to this subject. Judging from ver. 7, 8, the 
subject here treated of is the Christian doctrine, 
which was before unknown, and which is not 
the product of human invention. Still the whole 
passage leads to this, that God made these ex- 
traordinary provisions through Christ, in order 
to bring us to the enjoyment of an unspeakable 
bliss. Cf. also 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 

The following are among the principal names 
of future happiness, both literal and figura- 
tive : — 

(1) The literal appellations. Zcorj, ^w^ (uiovtoj, 
which, according to Hebrew usage, signifies, a 
happy life, vita vere vitalis, eternal well-being. 
Hence the term op-p; ®sov is opposed to it — 
e. g., John, iii. 16, 36 ; also xa-taxpi6i$, x6"ka<5i{, 
x. f. %. Ao|a, £6§a &sov, reward, Rom. ii. 7 ; 
V. 3. 'A^aptfta, 6o|a, tt/j-rj xal draper i/a, Rom. 
ii. 7 ; and ziprivyj, ver. ] 0. Aiuviov jSdpoj 86^rjSi 
an eternal reward of full weight, 2 Cor. iv. 17. 
Scor^pta, accrtripCa aiu>vio$, Heb. v. 9, &c. 

(2) Figurative representations. Among these 
is the name heaven. The abode of the departed 
saints is a place which, to us who live upon the 
earth, and while we remain here, is invisible 
and inaccessible, beyond the bound of the visi- 
ble world, and entirely separated from it; there 
they live in the highest well-being, and in a 
nearer connexion with God and Christ than 
here below. This place and state cannot be 
designated by anymore fit and brief expression 
than that which is found in almost every lan- 



guage — viz., heaven,- this, therefore, is frequent- 
ly employed by the sacred writers. It is there 
that the highest sanctuary or temple of God is 
situated — i. e., it is there where the omnipre- 
sent God reveals himself most gloriously. That, 
too, is the abode of the higher spiritual creation 
of God. Thither was Christ translated; he 
calls it the house of his Father, and says that he 
has there prepared an abode for his followers, 
John, xiv. 2, coll. s. 23, II., and s. 97, II. 

This place was never conceived of in ancient 
times, as it has been by some modern writers, 
as a particular planet, or world, but as the wide 
expanse of heaven, high above the atmosphere, 
or starry heaven ; hence it is sometimes called 
the third heaven, as being neither the atmo- 
sphere nor starry heaven. Vide 2»Cor. xii. 2. 
The remark of Morus is good, p. 297, note 4, 
" Illud in coelo esse, magis indicat statum condi- 
tionemque hominis, quam locum certum." 

Another figurative name is paradise, taken 
from the abode of the first man in his innocence. 
Vide vol. i. s. 52, ad finem. From this it is 
transferred to the abode of the blessed. Luke, 
xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7; xxii. 2. 

Again : this place is called the heavenly Jeru- 
salem (iTiovpavios, x(uvr[, rj dwo) ; because the 
earthly Jerusalem was the capital city of the 
Jews, the place of the royal residence, and the 
seat of the divine worship, Gal. iv. 26; Heb. 
xii. 22 ; Rev. iii. 12. Bouj^fta oajpowwv, or ®sov, 
Matt. xxv. 34 ; James, ii. 5 ; jSaai^sia £ Ttovpdvio$ 
and atwvtoj, 2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11 ; cvfifia- 
glXsvsw to) XpttfT'cj, 2 Tim. ii. 12 — i. e., to be 
distinguished, honoured, and happy, as he is, — 
to enjoy royal felicity. Cicero says, turn nos 
regnare videbamur. The stoics say, omncm sapi- 
entem regnare. K^povo/xla and xhyjpos, (accord- 
ing to the Heb. Eh> and Snj, possidere, to attain 
to possession,) the possessing and fully enjoying 
happiness, as the ancientlsraelites did Palestine. 
Hence xXrjpovo/xia ifstripyjfxsvT] iv ovpavon;, 1 Pet. 
i. 4; Heb. ix. 15. To sit down at table with 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — i. e., to share with 
the pious of antiquity in the joys of salvation ; 
to be in Jtbrahamh bosom — i. e., to sit next to 
Abraham, Luke, xvi. 22 ; Matt. viii. 1 1. Vide 
Wetstein, ad h. 1. 2aj3 J 6ai'K? 1 udj, or dvarfa/ufftj, 
dWis, Heb. iv. 10, 11, where it denotes the 
happiness of pious Christians, both in this life 
and that to come. SW^ayoj Sixcuoavvrfi, the re- 
ward of piety, 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Phil. iii. 14. 

(3) As to the abode of perfected and happy 
men after the judgment, when their souls will 
be again united with their bodies, the opinions of 
men have been very different. It is of chief im- 
portance to notice that it is always described in 
the New Testament as a very delightful and 
happy place. Moreover, the apostles teach dis- 
tinctly that this earth, after the present state of 
things is ended, will be renewed, and fitted for the 
3 a2 



558 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



ordinary residence of those whose souls will be 
again united with their bodies, in short, of the 
saints who will be raised. Vide 2 Pet. iii. 13, 
where he speaks of a new heavens and a new 
earth. Hence it is said in the Apocalypse, that 
the New Jerusalem in heaven (i. e., the abode 
of the departed souls of the pious) will, after 
.the resurrection, (when their souls will be again 
united with the body,) be let down (xa-tafiaivsuv) 
to the earth, (now renewed and beautified.) Rev. 
xxi. 1, seq., coll. Rom. viii. 18, seq. 

SECTION CLX. 

WHAT DO REASON AND SCRIPTURE TEACH AND 
LEAD US TO EXPECT, IN A GENERAL VIEW, AS 
TO THE REAL NATURE OF FUTURE BLESSED- 
NESS] * 

The sum of what we are taught by reason and 
scripture on this point may be comprehended 
under the three following particulars : — (a) We 
shall hereafter be entirely freed from the suffer- 
ings of this life; (b) Our future blessedness will 
be a continuation of the happiness of this life ; 
(c) But it will also be increased by the addition 
of many new joys, which stand in no natural or 
necessary connexion with our preceding condi- 
tion in this life. 

I. Entire Freedom from the Sufferings and Adver- 
sities of this Present Earthly Life. 

This is often expressed in the Bible by words 
which denote rest, repose, refreshment, after per- 
forming labour and suffering affliction — e. g., 
avs6i$, avdriav6is, 6a83atL<3ixo^, (not inactivity, 
entire freedom from employment, or indolence; 
vide s. 159 ;) vide 2 Thess. i. 7, " God will give 
to you, who are troubled, dwsdw. Heb. iv. 9, 
11 ; Rev. xiv. 13, "they rest from their labours," 
where xotcol, like labor es, signifies molestise af- 
flictions, and not employments. Cf. Moms, p. 
299, n. 1. Cf. also ""Rev. vii. 17, "God shall 
wipe away all tears from their eyes." 

This exemption from the evils of the pre- 
sent life includes, according to the New Testa- 
ment, 

(1) Deliverance from the earthly body, the 
seat of the lower principles of our nature and of 
our sinful corruption, and the cause of so many 
evils and sufferings, 2 Cor. v. 1, 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
Vide s. 153. 

(2) Entire separation from the society of 
wicked and evil-disposed persons, who in vari- 
ous ways injure the righteous man, and embitter 
his life on earth; 2 Tim. iv. 18, pvastal fie arto 
itwtoc, spyov Ttovvjpov, (i. e., men who do evil.) 
It is hence accounted as making a part of the 
felicity of Christ in heaven that he is there sepa- 
rated from sinners, (»E^wpt.(? l u£i'oj,) Heb. vii. 26. 

(3) Everything here upon the earth is incon- 
stant, and subject to perpetual change ; and in- 



capable of satisfying our expectations and de- 
sires. Everything is vanlvy. Even the pleasures 
and joys of this life are of such a nature that 
they lead to satiety and disgust when they are 
long continued. Vide s. 159. But in the world 
to come it will be different. The bliss of the 
saints will continue without interruption or 
change, without fear of termination, and without 
satiety ; — fj-ttfyavos a^apr'oj, autai/roj, d^apavT'of, 
a crown ever new arid beautiful, in opposition to 
the fading crowns of earthly victors; 1 Pet. i. 
4; v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 16, 18; Luke, xx. 36; 
1 John, iii. 2, et passim. From hence it is also 
manifest that the joys of the pious in the future 
world will be capable of a constant increase, an 
ever-progressive enlargement. For everything 
uniform and stationary produces satiety and dis- 
gust. In the heavenly world, then, there will 
be no sameness and stagnant uniformity of joy. 
Note. — The question is here asked, whether 
the pious, in the future world, will be entirely 
delivered from natural depravity, or the prepon- 
derance of sense over reason 1 ? Whether their 
obedience to God, and their virtue, will be so 
entirely confirmed that they will be for ever free 
from all danger of sinning? If we would agree 
with the holy scriptures we must answer this 
question in the affirmative. The whole ana- 
logy of Christian doctrine implies that this will 
be so; and so clearly that it does not need any 
further proof. That the state of the saint in the 
future world will be one of secure and confirmed 
holiness may also be deduced incontrovertibly 
from the doctrine of the perfectionment and en- 
nobling of the body. The seat of carnal appe- 
tite and of sin is in the earthly and mortal body ; 
and from this we shall then be freed, and shall 
possess, like Christ, a heavenly body, s. 77, 
and s. 153. According to 1 Cor. xv., our body 
will no more then be cr^ua ^v%cx6v, but Ttvsvfia- 
tixov. There is no need therefore of resorting 
to purgatory to explain how man may be here- 
after purged from hereditary depravity. The 
possibility of sinning will, however, still re- 
main, as it was with man in his original inno- 
cence, and as it is with the holy angels. But 
the blessed saints in heaven will not wish to sin ; 
for the preponderance of sense will then be en- 
tirely removed ; nor will they any longer meet 
with those external hindrances, those allure- 
ments to sin, which obstructed their piety here 
upon the earth. On the contrary, they will 
there have the strongest attractions and motives 
to piety, more enlarged views, good examples, 
&c. And these means are sufficient to confirm 
the saints in goodness. 

II. Continuance of the Happiness of l he Present 
Life. 

When the soul leaves the body it will retain 
the consciousness of whatever passed within it 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 559 



while here upon the earth. It carries along with 
it, into the future world, the ideas, the know- 
ledge, the habits, which it possessed here. And 
so it takes also good and evil from this life into 
the next, as its own property, and there receives 
the fruit of it. It is therefore certain that a part 
of the heavenly blessedness will consist in the 
consciousness and recollection of the good en- 
joyed and performed in the foregoing life, and 
in that cheerfulness and peace of mind which 
will proceed from the thought of this. As to 
the wicked, the case will be reversed. This, 
now, is one of the natural good consequences or 
rewards of virtue and piety; and the opposite is 
one of the natural evil consequences or punish- 
ments of sin. Vide s. 15G, 157. 

From what has now been said, it follows of 
course that there will be a difference of degree 
(diversitas graduum) in the happiness of saints 
in heaven. The happiness of all will be equally 
eternal, but not equally intense. The more good 
actions, such as are acceptable in the sight of 
God, one has performed, the nobler his virtues 
were, the greater the difficulties and hindrances 
which he had to overcome, the greater will be 
his reward. That this should be otherwise nei- 
ther the goodness nor justice of God permit us 
to believe. Thus, for example, two men, one 
of whom had devoted his whole life to virtue 
and piety, while the other had put off reflection 
to a late period, and then first renounced his 
former sins, could not possibly be equal to each 
other in reward. Vide s. 127, II. In short, 
the happiness of each individual will be exactly 
apportioned to his susceptibility of happiness. 
Great and various as may be his capacity or 
susceptibility for the enjoyment of happiness, 
just so great and various will his happiness 
certainly be hereafter. The very different ta- 
lents, powers, and knowledge of men, and the 
use they have made of them, also make a great 
difference as to the capacity for happiness. 

All this is perfectly accordant with the Chris- 
tian doctrine. Cf. the parables, Matt. xxv. 14, 
seq., and Luke, xix. 16 — 19; also 2 Cor. ix. 6, 
"he who soweth sparingly shall reap also spar- 
ingly ; and he who soweth bountifully shall reap 
also bountifully;" coll. Gal. vi. 7; 1 Cor. iii. 
8, " every man shall receive his own reward, 
according to his own labour, (xafa tov I8wv 
xo7tov\) Rom. ii. 10, "to him who worketh 
good, glory, honour, and peace, will be given, 
'IovSai,G> rtpw-fov, (since from his greater know- 
ledge he could do more good,) xai "EJk&qw," in 
opposition to the punishment spoken of ver. 9. 

This sentiment is not contrary to the de- 
claration of Christ, the last shall be first, &c, 
Matt. xix. 30; xx. 1 — 16, the parable of the 
labourers in the vineyard. For all which Christ 
there says has respect to the mercenary question 
of Peter. What shall we receive in return? In ( 



opposition to this, Christ teaches that men must 
not undertake to prescribe to God when and 
how he shall bestow rewards ; in their dealings 
with him they must not insist upon recompence ; 
for men have deserved no reward at the hand 
of God which they can claim as a right. They 
ought rather, conscious of their own unwor- 
thiness, to expect this reward, with humility 
and submission, only because God, of his mere 
good mercy, has promised it. Cf. Cotta, De 
Diversis Gradibus Glorise Beatorum ; Tub. 
1773. 

Note 1. — The Christian doctrine requires of 
every one who desires to partake of eternal hap- 
piness that he should possess a humble and un- 
pretending spirit, and should be deeply con- 
vinced that he deserves nothing by his good 
deeds, and has not so merited the rewards of 
the world to come that he can claim them as his 
right. This disposition is finely represented in 
Matt. xxv. 37, seq., where Christ says, that the 
pious will be hereafter surprised to find them- 
selves so rewarded, as they will not be conscious 
of having done any thing to deserve such re- 
wards. On the contrary, the wicked, ver. 44, 
suppose they have done much good, but are not- 
withstanding sent away into the place of torment. 
Vide especially Luke, xiii. 26, seq. 

Note 2. — According to the Christian doctrine, 
such actions only as flow from grateful love to 
God and Christ can be consistently rewarded, 
for these virtues only are recognised by scrip- 
ture as having any good desert. Hence in 
Matt. xxv. 35, 36, Christ himself specifies such 
deeds as are active proofs of faith in him, and 
of grateful love to him. Vide s. 124, 125, re- 
specting good works. One who does good from 
impure motives has, as Christ says, already re- 
ceived his reward. 

III. Positive Rewards in the Future World. 

Besides being exempt from all earthly trials, 
and having a continuance of that happiness 
which w T e had begun to enjoy even here, we 
have good reason to expect hereafter other re- 
wards and joys, which stand in no natural or 
necessary connexion with the present life. For 
our entire felicity would be extremely defective 
and scanty, should it be confined merely to that 
which we carry with us from the present world, 
to that peace and joy of soul which result from 
reflecting on what we may have done which is 
good and pleasing in the sight of God; since 
even the best man will always discover great 
imperfections in all that he has done. Our feli- 
city would also be incomplete were we com- 
pelled to stop short with that meagre and ele- 
mentary knowledge which we take with us 
from this world, — that knowledge so broken up 
into fragments, and yielding so little fruit, and 
which, poor as it is, many good men, from lack 



560 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



of opportunity and without any fault on their 
part, never here acquire. Besides the natural 
rewards of goodness, there must, therefore, be 
others which are positive and depending on the 
will of the Supreme Legislator. 

On this point almost all philosophers are for 
the above reasons agreed, even those who will 
admit of no positive punishments in the world to 
come. But for want of accurate knowledge 
of the state of things in the future world, we 
can say nothing definite and certain as to the 
nature of these positive rewards. Vide s. 159, 
I. In the doctrine of the New Testament, how- 
ever, positive rewards are considered most ob- 
viously as belonging to our future felicity, and 
as constituting a principal part of it. For it 
always represents the joys of heaven as result- 
ing strictly from the favour of God, and as being 
undeserved by those to whom they are given. 
Hence there must be something more added to 
the natural good consequences of our actions, 
something which cannot be considered as the 
necessary and natural consequences of the good 
actions we may have before performed. But 
on this subject, we know nothing more in gene- 
ral than this, that God will so appoint and order 
our circumstances, and make such arrange- 
ments, that the principal faculties of our souls — 
reason and affection, will be heightened and de- 
veloped, so that we shall continually obtain 
more pure and distinct knowledge of the truth, 
and make continual advances in holiness. 

The following particular remarks may be of 
some use in illustrating this subject: — 

(1) In this life God has very wisely allotted 
various capacities, powers, and talents, in dif- 
ferent ways and degrees, to different men, ac- 
cording to the various ends for which he designs 
them, and the business in which he employs 
them. Now there is not the least reason to 
suppose that God will abolish this variety in 
the future world ; it Will rather continue there 
in all its extent. We must suppose, then, that 
there will be, even in the heavenly world, a di- 
versity of tastes, of labours, and employments, 
and that to one person this, to another that, field 
in the boundless kingdom of truth and of useful 
occupation will be assigned for his cultivation 
according to his peculiar powers, qualifications, 
and tastes. 

A presentiment of this truth is contained in 
the idea, which was widely diffused throughout 
the ancient world — viz., that the Manes will 
still prosecute, in the future life, the employ- 
ments to which they had been here accustomed. 
At least, such arrangements will doubtless be 
made by God in the future life, that each indivi- 
dual will there develop more and more the 
germs implanted within him by the hand of the 
Creator; and will be able, more fully than he 
even could here, to satisfy the wants of his 



intellectual nature, and thus to make contmuaf 
progress in the knowledge of everything worthy 
of being known, of which he could learn only 
the simplest elements in this world ; and he 
will be able to do this in such a way that the 
increase of knowledge will not be detrimental 
to piety, as it often proves on earth, but Tather 
promotive of it. To the sincere and ardent 
searcher after truth it is a rejoicing and consol- 
ing thought that he will be able hereafter to per- 
fect that knowledge which here has so many 
deficiencies. Vide 1 Cor. xiii. 9, seq. 

But there is danger here of going too far, and 
of falling into those strange conceptions of 
which we find so many examples in the writ- 
ings of Lavater. Various as the tastes and 
wants of men in the future world will doubtless 
be, they will still be in many respects different 
from what they are here; because the whole 
sphere of action, and the objects by which we 
shall there be surrounded, will be different. 
We shall there have a changed and more per- 
fect body, and by this single circumstance shall 
be freed at once from many of the wants and in- 
clinations which have their seat in the earthly 
body. And this will also contribute much to 
rectify, enlarge, and perfect our knowledge. 
Many things which seem to us very important 
and essential during this our state of infancy 
upon earth, will hereafter doubtless appear in a 
different light; we shall look upon them as tri- 
fles and children's play, and employ ourselves 
in more important occupations, the utility and 
interest of which we may have never before 
thought of. 

Some theologians have supposed that the 
saints in heaven may be taught by immediate di- 
vine revelations (lumen glorias) ; especially those 
who may enter the abodes of the olessed without 
knowledge, or with only a small measure of it, 
— e. g., children, and others who have died in 
an ignorance for which they themselves were 
not to blame. On this subject nothing is defi- 
nitely taught in the scriptures; but both scrip- 
ture and reason warrant us in believing that 
provision will be made for all such persons in 
the future world. Vide s. 126, II. 

Note. — In the popular exhibition of the whole 
doctrine of future blessedness much prudence 
and caution are requisite ; and the teacher must 
pay careful attention to the difference of educa- 
tion and intellectual culture among his hearers. 
This is particularly necessary with regard to the 
point introduced in the foregoing paragraph. 
The importance which the learned and educated, 
man attaches to the culture of his intellectua. 
powers, and to the increase of knowledge, may 
easily lead him into the mistake of insisting, 
even in his religious discourses, too much on 
the importance of this/or every one, and of repre- 
senting it as constituting a chief part of the 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 561 



employments and joys of the future life. But the 
great mass of mankind have but little taste for 
this intellectual culture. They even associate 
with it the idea of severe labour and toil, be- 
cause thinking and learning are so difficult to 
them. It is the same as to the expectation of 
increased activity hereafter. This has no charm 
for the great mass of mankind, because their bo- 
dily labours are so oppressive. They find more 
satisfaction in the idea of rest and refreshment, 
with regard to which, however, they should be 
taught that the rest of heaven is not a state of 
entire inactivity. Vide s. 159. They prefer to 
hear of the cessation of all their pains, and the 
drying of all their tears. Cf. Rev. vii. 17, &c. 
It is therefore very necessary, in presenting this 
subject before popular assemblies, to have re- 
gard to the different wants, conceptions, and 
dispositions of men, and thus to imitate the ex- 
ample of Christ and the apostles. 

(2) A principal part of our future happiness 
will consist, according to the Christian doctrine, 
in the enlargement and correcting of our know- 
ledge respecting God, his nature, attributes, and 
works, and in the salutary application of this 
knowledge to our own moral benefit, to the in- 
crease of our faith, love, and obedience. There 
has been some controversy among theologians 
with regard to the vision of God, (visio Dei in- 
tuitiva, or sensitiva, or beat-ifica, or comprehen- 
siva.) The question is, whether the saints will 
hereafter behold Gcd with the eyes of the glo- 
rified body, or only with the eyes of the mind — 
i. e., merely know him with the understanding. 
On this point there was dispute even in the an- 
cient Oriental church among the Nestorians, 
some of whom advocated the bodily vision of 
God, and were on this account blamed by others. 
Even in the Latin church, too, there was con- 
troversy on this point among the schoolmen, 
and the different theological schools of the Rom- 
ish church. And this was transmitted to the 
protestant church of the seventeenth century ; 
since Musaeus, and other theologians of Jena, 
rejected the doctrine of the bodily vision of God, 
which was, on the other hand, advocated by the 
theologians of Wittemberg. 

But in the scriptures God is always repre- 
sented as a Being invisible by the bodily eye 
(dopciT'cn/), as indeed every spirit is. Vide s. 19. 
The texts of scripture which speak of seeing 
God have been misunderstood ; they signify, 
sometimes, the more distinct knowledge of God, 
as we speak of knowing by seeing, of seeing 
with the eyes of the mind ; so John, i. 1 8 ; iii. 2 ; 
iv. 12, coll. v. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16; and Paul 
uses fixijtsw and ywaaxsw as synonymous, 
1 Cor. xiii. 12, 13, coll. v. 10. — Again, they 
express the idea of felicity, the enjoyment of 
God's favour, the being thought worthy of his 
71 



friendship, &c. Still more frequently are both 
of these meanings comprehended under the 
phrase to see God. The image is taken from 
oriental princes, to see whose faces, and to be 
in whose presence, was esteemed a great favour. 
Cf. Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14, "Without holi- 
ness ov8sl$ o^stai tbv Ki3ptov." " The opposite 
of this is, to be lemoved from God and from his 
face. 

But Christ is always represented as one who 
will be personally visible by us, and whose per- 
sonal, familiar intercourse and guidance we 
shall enjoy. And herein Christ himself places 
a chief part of the joy of the saints, John, xiv., 
xvii., &c. And so the apostles often describe 
the blessedness of the pious, by the phrase being 
with Christ. To his guidance has God entrust- 
ed the human race, in heaven and on earth. 
And Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 6, we see " the bright- 
ness of the divine glory in the face of Christ," 
— he is " the visible representative of the invi- 
sible God," Col. i. 15. Vide s. 120, respecting 
the office of Christ. 

(3) According to the representation contained 
in the holy scriptures, the saints will dwell to- 
gether in the future world, and form, as it were, 
a kingdom or state of God. Cf. Luke, xvi. ; xx. 
38; Rom. viii. 10; Rev. vii. 9; Heb. xii. 23. 
They will there partake of a common felicity. 
Their enjoyment will doubtless be very much 
heightened by friendship, and by their confiding 
intercourse with each other. We must, how- 
ever, separate all earthly imperfection from our 
conceptions of this heavenly society. But that 
we shall there recognise our former friends, and 
shall be again associated with them, was uni- 
formly believed by all antiquity. Vide s. 150, 
II. 2. This idea was admitted as altogether 
rational, and as a consoling thought, by the 
most distinguished ancient philosophers. Cf. 
the speech of the dying Socrates, recorded by 
Plato, and translated by Cicero in his Tusculan 
Questions, i. 41. This too w 7 as the opinion of 
Cicero, as may be seen from his treatise, De Se- 
nectute, c. 23, and De Amicitia, c. 3, 4. 

And yet there have been Christians, and even 
teachers, calling themselves Christian teachers, 
who have blamed, and even ridiculed, other 
Christians for comforting themselves under the 
loss of those who were dear to them, by che- 
rishing the joyful hope of seeing them again, 
and renewing after death the friendship here 
formed. Even reason regards this as in a high 
degree probable; but to one who believes the 
holy scriptures it cannot be a matter of doubt oi 
conjecture. For, 

(a) The scriptures assure us that we shall 
hereafter see Christ, and shall enjoy his personal 
intercourse and friendship. So John, xiv. 3, 
"I will take you to myself; where I am, there 



562 



CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 



shall ye be also." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 8. According 
to John, xvii. 24, we shall be high witnesses 
and participators of his glory. 

(b) Paul says expressly, 1 Thess. iv. 17, that 
we shall be with Christ, in company with our 
friends who died before us (a^ia avv avtols) ; and 
this presupposes that we shall recognise them, 
and have intercourse with them, as with Christ 
himself. Paul advises that Christians should 
comfort themselves, under the loss of their 
friends, by considering that they are at home 
with the Lord, and that they shall be again 
united together. 

The objections made against this opinion are 
of no weight. It is said, for example, that the 
body of the saints will be entirely changed, and 
cannot therefore be recognised. But it would 
need to be proved that this change is of such a 
nature as to make it impossible to recognise a 
person to be the same whom we before knew. 
And even were this allowed, it is not merely 
through the body that we can recognise each 
other. Even friends here upon the earth, who 
have never seen each other's faces, disclose 
themselves by conversation and agreement of 
soul. Indeed, we can, even upon earth, through 
the instrumentality of others, become again ac- 
quainted with old friends whom we had forgot- 
ten. And why may not this be the case in the 
world to come 1 

Again : it is objected that Christ himself says, 
Matt. xxii. 30, that the relation of persons con- 
nected by marriage will cease in the heavenly 
world. It is said, moreover, that the love which 
exists between husband and wife, and also be- 
tween parent and child, is rather of a bodily 
than a spiritual nature, and therefore will wholly 
cease when this gross earthly body is thrown 
off. 

Answer. — It is true, indeed, that this con- 
nexion and love, so far as it is founded in the 
distinction of sexes and in blood-relationship, 
will cease ; there will be no wedlock, no sexual 
propensities, and no gross material bodies in 
the heavenly world. But friendship, in virtuous 
and pious minds, does not depend upon these 
circumstances, but rather upon conformity of 
intellectual tastes and dispositions. Whatever, 
therefore, is merely sensual and corporeal in 
love and friendship here upon the earth, will 
there fall away ; but whatever is spiritual, which 
is the essential and nobler part of friendship, 
will remain, and constitute a great part of the 
bliss of heaven. Cf. Less, De beatorum in 
crelis Consortio, in his Opusc. Theol. p. ii., p. 
329, seq. ; also Ribbeck's Sermons on this sub- 
ject; and Engel's little work, " Wir werden 
uns wiedersehen." Villaume, in his Inquiries 
on some Psychological Questions, denies, in 
his second essay, (whether, in the future life, 
we shall remember the present,) that we shall 



hereafter have any recollection of our lives on 
earth, because he regards memory as a bodily 
faculty, affected and often destroyed by bodily 
injuries. But here he mistakes the exercise of 
a power for the existence of the power itself. 
He also denies that friends will recognise each 
other in the life to come. 

Note. — The question is asked, whether the 
pleasures pertaining to the body, and bodily 
employments, will continue in the life to come'? 
There can be no hesitation, if we follow the 
scriptures, in answering both these questions in 
the affirmative. For what purpose will saints 
in the life to come have a body again, if it is 
not to be still the organ through which they will 
feel and act] It is therefore justly concluded 
that the pleasures and employments of heaven 
are not merely spiritual, but also bodily. Paul 
too says, according to the most natural interpre- 
tation of the passage, Rom. viii. 18, seq., that 
all nature will be ennobled and beautified for 
the residence of the friends of God ; and that 
they will dwell in a world which will minister 
pleasure to the refined senses of the spiritual 
body. 

But in what these corporeal pleasures and 
employments will consist cannot now be under- 
stood by us, because we know nothing of the 
nature of the future body, of its organs, or of the 
objects by which we shall then be surrounded. 
So much is certain, however, that these will be 
different from corporeal pleasures and employ- 
ments here upon the earth. This is clearly 
taught in the New Testament. E. g., Christ 
says, Matt. xxii. 20, that the saints, at the re- 
surrection, will be like the angels of God, (as we 
justly conceive of them ;) " they will not mar- 
ry, nor be given in marriage," because the end 
of marriage, the propagation of the race, will no 
longer exist. Nor will the glorified body be 
nourished and sustained by eating and drinking. 
Vide 1 Cor. xvi. 13; cf. s. 153. Hence it is 
obvious that Christ employed the phrase, to sit 
down (at table) with Jlbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
which was common among his contemporaries, 
in a figurative sense. 

The following are some of the most important 
or most celebrated works on the life eternal, and 
the joys of the blessed above — viz., On the His- 
tory of this Doctrine, Burnet; also Cotta, in his 
" Historia dogmatis de vita aeterna." Vide s. 
149, ad finem. This subject is treated doc- 
trinally and philosophically in Cotta's " Theses 
Theol. de vita aeterna." Tubing. 1758. A 
poetical delineation of this doctrine may be seen 
in Lavater's " Aussichten in die Ewigkeit." In 
this work, while we find many very beautiful 
and happy thoughts and fine observations, we 
feel the want of just interpretation of scripture, 
and calm and unimpassioned investigation. He 
gives himself entirely to the wing of his bold 



STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 563 



imagination, and treats the subject rather as a 
poet than a philosopher. A more strictly philo- 
sophical and theological investigation of this 
subject is found in the work of C. L. de Villette, 
Unterredungen iiber die Gliickseligkeit des zu- 
kunftigen Lebens, translated from the French 
into the German, and accompanied with a Pre- 
face, by Spalding. Berlin, 1766, 8vo. Cf. also 



Carl Wilhelm Goldhammer's Betrachtungen 
iiber das zukunftige Leben, u. s. w., 2 thl. ; Leip- 
zig, 1791 ; a work written with warmth of feel- 
ing and in a popular manner. The scriptural 
grounds of this doctrine are briefly and tho- 
roughly investigated by Storr, in his Comment, 
de beata Vita post Mortem, p. 75, torn. ii. of his 
Opusc. Academica. 



INDEX 



PART I.— SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 



Page 

Actual sins, true idea of 297 

Adam, original state of 187 

Age, notion of the golden 198 

Angels, creation of 208 

— , divisions of 209 

, importance of the doctrine of . 202 

-■, proofs of their existence . . . 208 

, their appellations 207 

, their nature 207 

, fallen, apostasy of 219 

■ , existence of 215 

— — , names of. • . • • . 221 

— — , nature of . . . .. . . 219 

, number and classes of . 221 
■, objections to the common 

theory of the employments of . . . 222 

, present and future state of 220 

, holy, classes of 212 

, employments of ... 211 

, names of 213 

fc present state of . . . . 209 

, worship of 214 

Arius, his view of the Trinity . . 153,160 

, origin of his errors 12 

Athanasius, his view of the Trinity . . 154 

Atheism, nature of 89 

Atonement, perfection of 393 

, various theories on . . . 400 

Augustine, his view of the soul . . . 158 

, opinions of, on grace . . . 459 

— , theory of, on original sin 275, 290 

Bacon, principles of, applied to theology 13 

Baptism, by whom to be administered . 487 

, effects of infant 495 

, external advantages of. . . 488 

, formulas used in 486 

■ — , institution of 483 



Baptism, internal advantages of . . 

, John's the same as Christ's 

, knowledge requisite for . 

, lawfulness of infant . . . 

, mode of 

, names of 

, necessity of 

, not to be repeated . . . 

, origin of 

usages incidental to . . . 



Bible, see Scriptures. 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost • • 
Blessedness eternal, continuance of pre- 
sent happiness 

, exemption from suf- 



ferings 



nature and names of 
to be expected . . 
rewards of . . . . 



Body, human, origin of . . . . . 
, original excellence of 



Children, salvation of . . . . 
Christ, active obedience of . . 

, ascension of ... . 

, deity and humanity of . 

, descent of, into hell . 

1 ' ■■, divine attributes ascribed to 

, divine honour claimed for 

, divine names given to . . 

, doctrine of his person . . 

, doctrines of, their truth . 

, glory of, in heaven . . . 

, happiness derived from, on earth 

>. in future 



influence of his example 
kingdom of ... . 
last appearance of . . 



Page 

488 
485 
487 
494 
485 
483 
491 
492 
484 
487 

305 

558 

558 
556 
555 
559 
200 
195 

421 
405 
348 
357 
343 
138 
139 
136 
355 
57 
350 
415 
418 
411 
350 
538 



3B 



565 



566 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 



Christ, millennial kingdom of ... . 538 

► — , mission of ....... 373 

, names of 372 

, offices of . 377 

, redemption effected by . . . 374 

— ■ , resurrection of ..... . 346 

— — , seat of, at God's right hand . . 355 

— , subjects of his teaching . . . 340 

, sufferings and death of . . . 390 

Christianity, names and blessings of . . 412 
Christians, views of the primitive, on the 

Trinity 148 

Church, catholic and apostolic .... 474 

" , divisions of 470 

, head of 475 

, perpetuity of 475 

, sanctity of 473 

, scriptural character of ... . 469 

, Christ teaching in the .... 476 

— -, unity of 472 

Confession, auricular, its futility . . . 448 

Conversion, meaning of the term . . . 439 

Creation, end of God in 171 

, how from nothing . . . . 167 

, Mosaic account of . . . . 171 

■ , six days of 177 

■ , time of year of 177 

, work of, twofold 169 

Creatures, different classes of . . . . 169 
, preservation of 241 

Dead, resurrection of, see Resurrection. 

Death, names and descriptions of . . . 514 

■ , senses in which used .... 515 

, state after 516, 518 

, universality of 515 

, whether or not a punishment . 516 

Decrees, divine 109 

Depravity, natural, ecclesiastical phrase- 
ology on 289 

— — , how proved . . . 283 

, imputation of . . . 287 

— , manner in which pro- 
pagated 286 

1 , names of, in scripture 278 

— — , nature of . . 277, 285 

— — , results of discussion 

of 293 

■ ■, teaching of doctrine 295 

Divinity, its character 26 

Doctrines, Christian, fundamental . . 34 

Eden, its character 188 

Edwards, President, views of, on original 

sin 282 

Eve, the creation of 188 

Faith, analogy of 35 

« , attrib ites of 434 



Pag« 

Faith, different degrees of . . . ; . 433 

, division of doctrines of .... 33 

, objects of 427 

, relation of one part of, to another . 431 

, significations of the term . . . 423 

, signs by which discovered . 432, 434 

, theological divisions of ... . 425 

Father, deity of 135 

Fathers, terminology of 366 

Forgiveness of sin, to what owing . . 390 

Franke, account of his lectures ... 13 

Germany, school of biblical theology in 10, 14 

God, decrees of 109, 124 

, division of the attributes of . . . 97 

, doctrine of his government . . . 245 

, eternity and immutability of . 99 

, government of, in relation to evil . 249 

, government of, relative to human 

freedom 247 

, holiness of 116 

, justice of . 117 

, knowledge of, whether innate . 32 

, nature and attributes of ... . 94 

God, notion of 85 

, omnipotence of 101 

, omnipresence of 105 

, omniscience of 102 

, proofs of the existence of . . . 86 

, scriptural names of 93 

, source of the knowledge of . . . 95 

, spirituality of 97 

, unity of 90 

, veracity and goodness of . . . 114 

, will of 109,113 

, wisdom of 108 

Golden age, notion of 198 

Grace, different theories of 458 

, divine origin of 454 

, explanation of the term . . . 449 

, later opinions on 461 

, operations of .... 451, 462 

, opinions of Latin fathers on . . 458 

— , scriptural phraseology of . . . 455 

— , various names of 450 

Guilt of sin, removal of 386 

Heathen, salvation of the 321 

Hell, history of doctrines of .... 554 
, names of 545 

, punishments of 545 

Holy Ghost, blasphemy against . . . 305 

, scriptural representation of . 306 



Holiness, its nature 442 

Image of God, how to be understood . . 189 

Immortality, ideas of Jews of .... 519 

, ideas of rude nations of . . 519 

, philosophical arguments on 521 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 



567 



Page 

Immortality, scriptural proofs of . . . 517 
Inclinations, evil, origin and punishable- 

ness of 288 

Indulgences, futility of 449 

Inspiration, idea of universal .... 66 

, national views of ... . 67 

, various theories of . . . 68 

, views of great men of . . 66 

Involuntary sins 301 



Jesus, ascension of 

, character of, as a teacher .... 

, deity and humanity of .... 

, descent into hell of 

, different conditions of 

, doctrine of 

, doctrine of the person of ... . 

, early history of 

, glory of, in heaven 

, history of opinions concerning . . 

, kingdom of 

, method of his ministry .... 

, miraculous conception of . . . 

, mission of 

, names of 

, offices of 

, predictions respecting 

— — , redemption effected by .... 

, resurrection of 

—— , seat of, at God's right hand . . . 

, subjects of his ministry . . . . 

, sufferings and death of . . 341 

, true humanity of 

Jews, views of, on original sin . . . . 
Jews and Gentiles, future conversion of . 

Judgment, the general 

Justification, an unmerited favour . . . 
, effect of Christ's exaltation 



-, only of Christ 
-, universality of 



Keckermann, B., his view of the Trinity 

Keys, import of the term 

Knapp, Dr., memoir of 

Language, original, of man 

Law, connexion of sin with 

Law and gospel, meaning of ... . 
Life, connexion of the present and future 

, the tree of 

Lord's Supper, by whom and how to be 

observed 

-, by whom to be adminis- 



tered 



ot 



-, chief object of ... . 
-, external uses and efficacy 



history of opinions of 



348 
337 
357 
343 
331 
337 
355 
337 
350 
361 
350 
338 
334 
373 
373 
377 
325 
374 
346 
355 
340 
390 
335 
273 
540 
541 
399 

395 

388 
397 

159 

478 

16 

196 

299 
429 
518 

187 

502 

503 

499 

505 

50S 



Page 

Lord's Supper, institution of ... . 497 

, internal uses and efficacy 

of 505 

, names of 496 

s remarks on hypotheses of 512 

, texts relating to . . . 497 

, unessential rites in . . 504 

, use of bread and wine in 501 



Magic, historical observations on . . . 231 

Man, destination of 182 

, means of subsistence of .... 187 

, moral inability of 28 

, Mosaic account of the origin of .184 

, nature of 180 

, original external advantages of .197 

, original language of 196 

, preservation of 243 

—, primitive state of 192 

Matter, on the eternity of 166 

Men, great, belief of, in inspiration . . 66 
Messiah, degrees of revelation of . . . 328 

, gradual development of . . 321 

— , interpretation of the predictions . 



respecting 

, Jesus of Nazareth the true 

, views of the Jews of . 

Millennial kingdom, the .... 
Miracles, Christianity proved by . 
— , their possibility ... 



325 

324 

323 

538 

59 

... 254 

Monarchians, their views of God . . . 151 

Monothelites, sect of 366 

Morals, importance of the Christian sys- 
tem 

Mosaic institute, abolition of . . . 



... 31 

... 413 
Mysteries, religious 36 



Nations, agreement of, in ideas of inspi- 
ration . 66 

Nature, revelation of God in ... . 28 

New-Testament writers, their views of 

original sin 274 

Nicene Council, the 154 

Ordination, nature and importance of . . 477 
Origen, his views of the Trinity . 153, 362 



Paradise, its character . . . 

Pardon, nature of 

Participation, how shown in sin 
Pelagius, errors of, on grace 
, views of, on original sin 



Penance, futility of ... . 
, self-inflicted, folly of 



Plato, his views of God . . . 
Possession, satanic, history of . 

, meaning of 

, records of, in the New 



Testament 



1S8 
3S5 
304 
45S 
389 
417 
3S2 
145 

on- 

226 



229 



568 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 



Prayer, ** mean of grace 

Predictions, Messianic, accommodations 
of 

, degrees of . . 

■, how interpreted 

— ■ , principles of, act- 
ed on dv Christ and his apostles . . 

Prophecies of Christ proofs ">f Christian- 
ity ...... . ' . . . 

Providence, definition of . . . . . 

, history of opinions of . . 

, its benevolence .... 

, its universality . . . . 

, its unsearchableness . . . 

— , proofs of 

, scholastic views of . . . 

Punishment, its nature and object . • . 

, positive divine .... 

, removal of . . ... 

, scriptural names of . . . 

Punishments, division of 

Purgatory, opinions on 



Rationalism, character and design of . 

Reason, definition of 

, use of . 



Reconciliation, nature of 

Recovery of man, divine institutions for . 
, , purpose of God respect- 
ing 

, requisites for ... 



Regeneration, meaning of the term . . 
Religion, harmony of natural and reveal- 
ed 29 

, its distinction from theology . 

, mysteries of 

, of Christ, beneficial tendency 



Page 
467 

325 

328 
325 

326 

61 
235 
236 
253 
252 
253 
238 
239 
311 
314 
387 
312 
312 
529 

14 

38 

38 

501 

317 

320 
317 

440 



of 



42, 



Repentance, character of . . . 

, danger of delaying . . . 

— — , mistakes respecting . . . 

, not the procuring cause of 



salvation 

Revelation, degrees of 

•, principal periods of . . . 

, object of 

, one made by God to man . 

Resurrection, biblical representation of . 

, Christian doctrine of . . 

, difference of the future body 

from the present 

, doctrine of the Jews respect- 



ing 



identity of the present and 



future body 



what is understood by 



30 

26 
35 

58 
441 
442 

447 

382 
40 
41 
40 
28 
532 
531 

534 

528 

536 

527 



Sabbath, its origin 173 

Sacrament, nature of a 479 



Page 
Sacraments, object of Christ in instituting 482 
Sacrifice, universality and design of . . 380 

Salvation, conditions of 420 

of children and the heathen . 421 



Sanctification, its nature 442 

Satan, power of, over men 226 

Scriptures, books of 47 

, external proofs 47 

, how adapted for common use . 80 

, inspiration of 62 

1 — , integrity of 56 

, internal proofs of 47 

, reading of 78 

, the use of 37, 74 

, . 159 

. . 297 

, . 305 

, . 410 

, . 259 

, . 298 



Servetus, his view of the Trinity . . 

Sin, actual idea of 

, against the Holy Ghost . . . 

, Christ's instructions on . . . 

, definition of 

, different degrees of .... 

, inquiry as to whether God could 

have prevented 265 

, forgiveness of, its cause .... 380 

, its necessity . . . 385 

, how connected with knowledge . 300 

, imputation of Adam's 273 

, involuntary 301 

, its results on the sinner .... 308 

, manner of 409 

, Mosaic account of original . . . 266 

, opinions of heathen philosophers on 261 

, participation of others' .... 304 

, redemption from 408 

, results of reason and observation 

on 263 

, scriptural terms for 260 

, sorrow for 443 



, viewed in connexion with the law 

Socinians, their views of the Trinity . . 

Soul, its origin 

Souls, departed, opinions of their state . 
■ , place of their abode . . 



Spectres, question as to existence of . 
Spener, proceedings of, at Halle . . 

Spirit, Holy, divinity of 

, meaning of the term . . 

, names given to . . . 

, personality of 141 



299 
160 
200 
525 
523 
233 
9 
142 
140 
143 



Teachers, Christian, rights of ... . 
Testament, New, collection of books of . 

, external proofs of . . 

, inspiration of . . . 

, Old, authenticity of . . . 

, cautions in reading 

■■ , completion of canon of 

, external proofs of . . 

inspiration of . . . 

origin of canon of . . 



478 
53 
47 
62 
48 
77. 
51 
44 
64 
50 



INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED. 



569 



Testament, Old, reception of canon of 
Theologians' hypotheses on sin . . 
Theology, course of study of . . . 

, how distinct from religion 

, scientific treatment of . . 

Tradition, the use of 

Trinity, distinction of persons in . . 

, doctrine of 

, history of doctrine of . . . 

, how taught in Xew Testament 

Old Testament 

, terms employed respecting 15 

, views of primitive Christians re< 



spectmg 



Page 

52 

274 

44 

26 

43 

39 

155 

130 

144 

133 

131 

, 154 

143 



Understanding, original excellence of 
man's 192 



Page 
Urlsperger, Dr., his views of the Trinity 161 

Will, original excellence of man's . . 194 
Works, good, connexion of, with salva- 
tion 43* 

, history of opinions respect- 
ing 437 

, not to be depended on for 

salvation 382 

, true nature of . . . .435 

Works of God, knowledge of ... . 170 
World, ancient, views of, on divine influ- 
ence 66 

, creation of 163 

, end of 543 

, material from which formed 176, 163 

, meaning of the term .... 161 



3b2 



PART II— SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED. 



Genesis. 

CHAP. VERSE PAGE 

1. 1,2 .... 176 

1. 26 .... . 169 

2. 4—24 . . 185, 271 

3. 14, 15 . . 272, 329 

3. 19 271 

6. 7 113 

17. 1 93 

49. 10 329 

Exodus. 

3. 13 93 

32. 32 243 

Numbers. 

6. 24 133 

Deuteronomy. 

4. 7, 8 .... 29 
6. 4 91 

18. 18 329 

2 Samuel. 

16. 14 227 

Job. 

14. 4 283 

19. 25, &c. ... 528 
38. 7 207 

Psalms. 

2. 7 132 

14. 1 89 

16. 10 344 

19. 1—6 .... 28 

32. 2 444 

33. 6, 9 . . 102, 133 

51. 7 283 

90 101 

119. 89—91 ... 114 

139. 15, 16 . . . . 200 





Proverbs. 




CHAP. 


VERSE 


PAGE 


8. 


22—30 . . 

ECCLESIASTES. 


108 


8. 


8 


99 


12. 


7 . . . . . 

Isaiah. 


99 


6. 


3 


133 


28. 


23—29 v. . . 


122 


44. 


6 


100 


48. 


11 


94 


48. 


16 


133 


53. 




330 



Jeremiah. 

23. 23, 24 . . . . 107 

Matthew. 

1. 20 335 

3. 16, 17 . . . . 134 

5. 17 ..... . 77 

16. 18 476 

16. 19 478 

20. 1—16 . . 127, 559 

23. 35 52 

24 538 

25. 41—46 ... 300 

26. 41 301 

26. 63 57 

28. 18—20 ... 133 



Mark. 
3. 28—30 . 



306 



Luke. 

1. 37 102 

11. 51 52 

15 443 

16. 8 251 

18. 9—14 .... 413 



John. 



CHAP. 
1. 

3. 

5. 

5. 

5. 

7. 

8. 
10. 
10. 
13. 
14. 
14. 
14. 
15. 
15. 
17. 
20. 
20. 
20. 



VERSE 

1,2 
3,5 

23 . 
39 . 
39—47 
15—17 

44 . 
28 . 
34—36 
19 . 
6 . 
16, 17 
26 . 
22—24 
26 . 
5 . 
23 . 
25 . 
28 . 



Acts 

3. 20, 21 . 
13. 48 . . 
17. 27—31 



Roman 



1. 3,4 

1. 19, 20 

2. 14, 15 

3. . . 

3. 21—28 

4. 4 . 

5. 6 . 

5. 11 . 

6. 3,4 
8. 15 . 
8. 29, 30 

8. 34 . 

9. 5 . 
9. 18 . 

10. 14 . 



PAGE 

, . 136 

441, 489 

. 140 

. 76 

. 324 

. 59 

. 224 

. 137 

. 93 

. 62 

. 373 

. 141 

134, 141 

. 300 

. 141 

. 138 

. 478 

. 234 

. 137 



349 
128 

23 



. 138 
23, 33 

. 32 

. 399 

. 339 

. 116 

. 391 

. 386 

. 490 

. 77 

. 125 

. 396 

. 137 

. 310 

. 337 



571 



572 



INDEX OF SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED. 



CHAP. VERSE PAGE 

11. 33—36 ... 541 

12. 6 35 

1 Corinthians. 

1. 30 373 

3. 11 .... . 33 

10. 6—11 .... 121 

11. 27—34 . 121,507 

12. 4—11 .... 142 

2 Corinthians. 

3. 11 42 

5. 21 392 

7. 9, 10 ... . 443 

13. 14 134 





Ephesians. 




1. 


4—14 .... 


112 


2. 


3 . . . : . 

Philippians. 


285 


2. 


6 


137 


2. 


8,9 . . . . 


333 


gc 


10 

COLOSSIANS. 


140 


I, 


24 


391 





1 Thessalonians. 




CHAP. 
1. 

4. 


VERSE 

8—10 .... 
17 

1 Timothy. 


PAGE 

34 
562 


5. 


22 

2 Timothy. 


304 


3. 


14—17 . . . 


64 



Titus. 

2. 11 410 

2. 13 138 

3. 5 489 

Hebrews. 

1. 1 40 

2. 9—11 .... 332 
2. 14 . . . 225,373 

4. 12 114 

6. 1 34 

6. 13 115 

7. 9, 10 ... . 274 

7. 25 396 

9. 24 396 

11. 3 167 

II. 13 . : . . . 41 



CHAP. VERSE PA.GB 

12. 1,2 .... 412 

12. 5—11 .... 122 

12. 27 42 

James. 

1. 17 .... . 101 

1 Peter. 

1. 2 134 

3. 19 344 

3. 21 489 

2 Peter. 

1. 3, 4 .... 410 

1. 19, 20 . . . . 65 

2. 4 219 

3. 7—13 . . 101,544 

1 John. 

2. 1 396 

5. 7, 8 .... 134 

JUDE. 

6 . . . . 219 

Revelation. 

20. 1—8 ... 538 

22. 18. ... 74 



\k\ qp-f 











i* 







vv 



VV 




°o 






^•/ v^V %.^V v^*y .. 












y ^d^SSpSic^" "*t*- Deacidified using tt 

Neutralizing agent: 
izkfflfcS'* ^5 Treatment Date: Jul, „ 

?*• % * <b^ % % * ;tv* % <o° \> *^l • ** «** PreservationTechnologie 

*\ % • • • , *^v flV »'•«»* ^ V » • ' A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

C % JtQQfo£+ *t*^ A*^ *'a&.^,»*«v A «i ^*^ftS 111 Thomson Park Drive 



*f>> Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
^5 Treatment Date: July 2005 



■v «. 



^/ 



Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-211 






»• ^ 



© . * * A 















••* 



&. ° X-SkX c»*.£&.% <**.;&&* * V 







